ΦΡΑ τες ΑΣΕῊ 
CES. 


Sesstiie Sat 


ἜΣ Ξ το τς τον τ eres bs notres tect eres ete 


στ στον 


sry a tesatihianeiee ines 
oes ASH ease eat on feoe eter tebe 
Senet eareten τεντετεῖτ τε σεέξεεε 


CERRY OF PRINCE 


BS2695 .E46 

Ellicott, Charles J. 

A commentary, critical and 
grammatical, on St. Paul's 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/commentarycrit00elll 


ἮΝ i i 


Phuket 
Th ae ἍΝ 
Ai ἡ" 


᾿ 


=, 


Ξ- 
a ςυ 
Ὡ. νυ — 
᾿ a i 
ine 
a 
ane a 
——~ - —- 
= 
ii han ee 
= aa 
«αὐ ae 
ee 
a 


᾿ i] iy ' 
he) Qe 
ΤῊΝ ty Ne ; Wh ᾿ 4 
1 ae) he 


ν΄ ᾿- 


᾿ ha ᾿ ᾿ 
"8 it ‘7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
᾿ oy ᾿ . 
A a AAS 
᾿ T ἽΝ 
AT 
πὴ 
Ι 
fj 
᾿ Ϊ 
j ᾿ 
i} ἱ 
a 
ae Ἰ 
a ' 


Ν i ea 
. PAT AKL. |. Cher hie 
ὃ ιν "7. ' af Ἃ Ry 


ay . | 


CRY OF Ρἢν 


MAR 161910: 
a; 


COMMENTARY, 


GChili¢“l AND GRAMMATICAL, 


ON ST. PAUL'S 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


WITH A 


REVISED TRANSLATION. 


BY 


CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, B.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON, AND LATE FELLOW 
OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 


ANDOVER: 


WARE EN DRAPER. 


BOS LON] - G Oi Dp, ANID IotN CORN. 
NEW YORK: JOHN WILEY. 
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH & CO. 


18638. 


i Ὁ- 


oT, a parietln ot) 
¥ ἴω τοῦ ae! 
Tae De Ἢ aly 
s 24h 
τ: ry vam a 
wrong, τ Fo warnltee 


Andover: ἊΨ ν aa Ἢ va 
Ww i Cor sie ee 
Bick protuped and Printed by W. F. Draper. > pe 


Ὁ ΒΟ acy 
ἐξ ΜΡ 

ὩΣ pil εὐπαδ αβϑ, 
ENN eee add 
ae 


1 VER eee agit! 


nibs 2sbaeisl ede bhe 
btn <li ψάρι ποσῶι, 
ὗν γάδο ἡ Bek KANDI ὁ 

ὌΠ ΤῊΝ εὖ οἷα 

Te abos ag: weikiae τὴ ro 


Le! 


ΔΜ ιν ὦ 47 hate = fecareyei Sere πὴ ᾿ 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


Tue following pages form the second part of a commentary on St. Paul’s 
Epistles, founded on the same principles and constructed on the same plan as 
that of the Epistle to the Galatians. 

As I explained, somewhat at length, in the preface to that Epistle, the 
general principles, critical, grammatical, and exegetical, upon which this 
commentary has been attempted, I will now only make a few special obser- 
vations on this present portion of the work, and record my obligations to 
those expositors who have more particularly devoted themselves to this 
Epistle. “" 

With regard to the present commentary, I will only remind the reader, 
that as in style, matter, and logical connection, this sublime Epistle differs 
considerably from that to the Galatians, so the commentary must necessarily, 
in many respects, reflect these differences and distinctions. Several points 
of grammatical interest which particularly characterized the former Epistle 
are scarcely perceptible in the present ; while difficulties which made them- 
selves but slightly felt in the vivid, argumentative, expostulatory language of 
the Epistle to the Galatians, are here, amidst the earnest hortatory comments, 
the deeper doctrinal expositions, and the more profound enarrations of the 
primal counsels of God, ever maintaining a distinct and visible prominence. 
In the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, the explanation of the uses of 
the cases did not commonly involve many points of interest: in this Epistle, 
the cases, especially the genitive, present almost every phase and form of diffi- 
culty ; the uses are most various, the combinations most subtle and significant. 
In the Epistle to the Galatians, again, the particles, causal, illative, or adver- 
sative, which connected the clauses were constantly claiming the reader’s 
attention, while the subordination or codrdination of the clauses themselves 
and the inter-dependence of the different members and factors of the sen- 
tence were generally simple and perspicuous. In the present Epistle these 
difficulties are exactly reversed; the use of the particles is more simple, 
while the intertexture of sentences and the connection of clauses, especially 
in the earlier portions of the Epistle, try the powers and principles of gram- 
matical and logical analysis to the very uttermost. 


ἵν PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


In the first chapter more particularly, when we are permitted, as it were, 
to gaze upon the evolution of the archetypal dispensation of God, amidst 
those linked and blended clauses that, like the enwreathed smoke of some 
sweet-smelling sacrifice, mount and mount upwards to the very heaven of 
heavens, in that group of sentences of rarest harmony and more than mortal 
eloquence, these difficulties are so great and so deep, that the most exact 
language and the most discriminating analysis seem, as they truly are, too 
poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so 
august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound. 

It is in this part that I have been deeply conscious that the system of ex- 
position which I have adopted has passed through its sorest and severest trial, 
and though I have labored with anxious and unremitting industry, though I 
have spared neither toil nor time, but with fear and trembling, and not with- 
out many prayers have devoted every power to the endeavor to develop the 
outward meaning and connection of this stupendous revelation, I yet feel, 
from my very heart, how feeble that effort has been, how inexpressive my 
words, how powerless my grasp, how imperfect my delineation. 

Still, in other portions of this Epistle, I trust I am not presumptuous in 
saying that I have been more cheered and hopeful, and that I have felt 
increased confidence in the system of exposition I was enabled to pursue in 
the commentary on the preceding Epistle. I have thus (especially after the 
kind notices my former work has received) studiously maintained in the 
present notes the same critical and grammatical characteristics which marked 
the former commentary. The only difference that I am aware of will be 
found in the still greater attention I have paid to the Greek Expositors, a 
slight decrease in the references to some modern commentators in whom I 
have felt a diminishing confidence, a slight increase in the references to our 
best English Divines which the nature of this profound Epistle has seemed to 
require. I deeply regret that the limits which I have prescribed to myself in 
this commentary have prevented my embodying the substance of these refer- 
ences in the notes, as I well know the disinclination to pause and consult 
other authors which every reader, save the most earnest and truth-seeking, is 
certain to feel. Yet this I will say, that I think the student will not often 
regret the trouble he may have to take in reading those few portions of our 
great English Divines to which I have directed his attention, and which, for 
his sake, I could wish had been more numerous. Such as they are, they are 
the results of my own private reading and observation. 

In the grammatical portion of the commentary I must entreat the reader 
to bear with me, if for the sake of brevity, and, I might even say, perspicuity, 
I have been forced to avail myself of the current forms of expression adopted 
by modern grammatical writers. They will all be found elucidated in the 
treatises to which I have referred, and of these, every one, to the best of my 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. iV 


belief, is well known and accessible, and will probably occupy a place in the 
library of most scholars. 

I must now briefly notice the authors to whom, in addition to those men- 
tioned in the preface to the Galatians, I am indebted in the present Epistle. 

Of the patristic commentators I have derived great benefit from some 
exceedingly valuable annotations of Origen, which are to be found in Cramer’s 
Catene, and which have hitherto scarcely received any notice from recent 
expositors, though they most eminently deserve it. 

Of modern commentators on this Epistle, 1 am deeply indebted to the 
admirable exposition of Harless, which, for accurate scholarship, learning, 
candor, and ability, may be pronounced one of the best, if not the very best 
commentary that has ever yet appeared on any single portion of Holy Scrip- 
ture. A second edition has long been promised, but, as far as I could learn 
from catalogues, and the foreign booksellers in this country, it had not made 
its appearance when I commenced this Epistle, nor, up to the present time, 
have I seen any notice of its publication. 

The exposition of this Epistle by Dr. Stier, under the title of Die Gemeinde 
in Christo Jesu, is very complete and comprehensive, but so depressingly 
voluminous as to weary out the patience of the most devoted reader. When 
I mention that it extends to upwards of 1050 closely printed pages, and that 
some single verses (e. g. ch. 1. 28, il. 15) are commented on to the extent of 
nearly thirty pages, I may be excused if I express my regret that a writer so 
earnest, so reverential, and so favorably known to the world as Dr. Rudolph 
Stier, should not have endeavored to have confined his commentary to some- 
what more moderate dimensions. The chief fault I venture to find with Dr. 
Stier’s system of interpretation is his constant and (in this work) charac- 
teristic endeavor to blend together two or more explanations, and, in his 
earnest and most praiseworthy attempt to exhibit the many deeper meanings 
which a passage may involve, to unite what is often dissimilar and inharmo- 
nious. Still his commentary is the production of a learned and devout mind, 
and no reader will consult it in vain. A review of it may be found in the 
seventy-ninth volume of Reuter’s Repertorium. 

The third special commentary I desire to mention, is the full and laborious 
commentary of Professor Eadie. I have derived from it little directly, as it 
is, to a great degree, confessedly a compilation from existing materials, and 
these I have, in all cases, thought it my duty to examine and to use for 
myself; still I have never failed to give Professor Eadie’s decisions my best 
consideration, and have in many cases felt myself edified by the devoutness, 
and, not unfrequently, the eloquence of his expositions. I trust, however, 
the learned author will excuse me when I say that I do not think the gram- 
matical portion of the commentary is by any means so well executed as the 
exegetical, and that I cannot but regard this otherwise able work, as, to a 


VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


certain extent, an example of the truth of an opinion which I ventured to 
express in the preface to the Galatians, viz., that theological as well as 
grammatical learning is now so much increased, that it is hard to find a com- 
mentator who is able satisfactorily to undertake, at one and the same time, a 
critical, grammatical, exegetical, and dogmatical exposition of any portion of 
the New Testament. In his cumulative representation of the opinions of 
other commentators, as my notes will occasionally testify, Professor Eadie is 
also not always exact: with these abatements, however, which candor compels 
me to make, I can heartily and conscientiously recommend this commentary 
as both judicious and comprehensive, and as a great and important addition 
to the exegetical labors of this country. 

I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, 
and learned commentary of Dr. Meyer, has been most carefully consulted 
throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my 
great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned editor. In 
many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Dr. Meyer, but, as a critical 
and grammatical expositor, I entertain for him a very great respect. 

I have now only to commit my work to the reader, with the humble prayer 
to Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, that it may receive a blessing from 
above, and, though feebly and imperfectly, may still be permitted to minister 
somewhat to the more accurate knowledge of His blessed Word, and to the 
clearer perception of the outward forms and expressions of His everlasting 


Truth. 
C. J. ELLICOTT. 
CAMBRIDGE, JUNE 1855. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


Tue second edition of the present Epistle is in all respects similar to the . 
second edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, which appeared a few months 
since, and is brought up, I sincerely hope, fully to the same standard. 

It is perhaps right to say that little has been substantially altered, and that 
the reader of the first edition will scarcely find more than half a dozen pas- 
sages! where the opinions formerly maintained are either retracted or modi- 
fied; still the additions are great, and the number of notes that have been 
recast or re-written by no means inconsiderable. By this means space has 
been obtained for the introduction of new matter; weaker arguments in con- 
tested passages have been made to give place to what might seem to put ina 
clearer light the stronger argument ; logical and grammatical observations 
have been more grouped, and the links of thought that connect clause with 
clause or sentence with sentence, more studiously exhibited. In this last 
respect the additions will be found great, and will, I trust, by the blessing of 
God, be of no little use to the reader in properly pursuing the train of sub- 
lime thought that runs through this transcendent Epistle. This, alas! is the 
point most commonly neglected in our general study of Scripture: we trust 
to general impressions, and carry away general ideas, but the exact sequence 
of thought in the mind of the inspired writer is what, I fear, is only too fre- 
quently neglected. It is useless to disguise that this close analysis of the 
sacred text is very difficult,—that it requires a calm judgment, and a dis- 
ciplined mind no less than a loving and teachable heart,—that it is not a 
power we can acquire in a week or in a month,— yet if Scripture be, what 
I for one believe it to be, the writing of men inspired by the third Person of 
the adorable Trinity, then we may well conceive no labor in this direction 
can be too severe, no exercise of thought too close or persistent. Let it also 
be not forgotten that no intelligent reader can now fairly say that he is with- 
out proper assistance ; that the well is deep and he has nothing to draw with. 

Setting aside all mention of the general improvement in the Commentaries 
of the day, and supposing the tacit objector to be either unable or unwilling 


11 may specify for the sake of those who have the first edition, ch. i. 10, 12, 22; ii. 15; 
iy. 6; iv. 23 (amplified view); v. 25 (critical note). 


Vill PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


to face the labor of reading the great patristic expositors, let him still re- 
member that the science of grammar is now so much advanced,’ that syntax 
and logic are now so well and so happily combined, that no one who is really 
in earnest, and to whom God has given a fair measure of ability, can for a 
moment justly plead that an accurate knowledge of the Greek of the New 
Testament is beyond his grasp, and a power of analyzing the connection of 
its weighty sentences not abundantly ministered to him. I studiously limit 
myself to saying the Greek of the New Testament: individual industry, how- 
ever steadily exercised, may sometimes fail in making a student a good general 
Greek scholar ; he may have no natural power of appreciating those felicities 
of expression, no ready ability for discriminating between those subtle uses 
of particles which mark the best age of Attic Greek ; but the language of the 
New Testament, its plain, hearty, truly simple, but truly Greek diction, is, I 
am confident, above the reach of no one who will soundly study the general 
rules of thought and language, as they are now put before us by the gram- 
marians of our own time. And this I say, partly to encourage the humbler 
reader who might have thought such acquirements decidedly out of his reach, 
partly for the sake of augmenting that kind and considerate company of stu- 
dents that have given these commentaries a hearing, and have borne patiently 
with the constant notice and repetition of grammatical details. I venture 
thus to dwell upon this topic, —a topic in part alluded to in the preface to 
the first edition, as four years of hard study since that was written, and, 
what is more valuable for testing opinions, one year of responsible teaching 
have convinced me that a really accurate knowledge of the language of the 
Greek Testament may be acquired far more easily than might at first have 
been imagined; and have further confirmed me in the belief that it is by 
these accurate investigations of the language of the Inspired Volume that 
we are enabled really to penetrate into its deeper mysteries, and thence to 
learn to appreciate the more convincing certainty of our highest hopes, and 
the more assured reality of our truest consolations. 

But to return to the present volume. The student will find a great, and, 
I trust, a weleome addition in the constant citations from nine ancient ver- 
sions, viz., the Old Latin, the two Syriac Versions, the Vulgate, the Coptic, 
the Gothic, the two Ethiopie Versions, and the Armenian.* All these have 


1 I may here remark that the Greek Grammar of Dr. Donaldson, noticed in the Preface 
to the Galatians, has now reached a second and enlarged edition, and is so complete in all 
its parts, and so felicitous in its combination of logic with grammar, as to form a most im- 
portant contribution to the accurate study of the Greek language. 

21 may take this opportunity of noticing, for the benefit of those who may be disposed 
to study this interesting and not very difficult language, that I have derived much useful 
assistance from the Brevis Lingue Armeniace Grammatica (Ber). 1841) of J. H. Petermann. 
It is furnished with a good Chrestomathy and a useful glossary, and has the great ad- 
vantage of being perspicuous and brief. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ΙΧ 


been carefully studied, their opmions maturely considered, and their views 
of debated passages exhibited in brief and unpretending, but (if labor may 
be allowed to make me hopeful) in correct and trustworthy enumerations. 

Considerable additions have been made in the way of short critical notes, 
especially in those cases in which the Received Text differs from the reading 
which I have thought it right to follow. Here I have received some welcome 
assistance from the last, the so-called seventh edition of Dr. Tischendorf’s 
New Testament,’ though I regret to say I am still obliged to reiterate the 
opinion which I have formerly expressed, that at any rate in the citations 
from the Ancient Versions, Dr. Tischendorf is not always to be depended 
upon. Huis own preface, though marked by great assumption of tone, will 
indeed itself confirm this; as he has, by his own admissions, depended nearly 
entirely on Leusden and Schaaf for the Peshito-Syriac, — on the incorrect 
edition of Wilkins for the Coptic Version of the Epistles, to the complete 
neglect of the more recent edition of Botticher,—on a collator for Platt’s 
Ethiopic, — and for the Armenian, on the edition of a man whose general 
inaccuracies he has unsparinely denounced, Dr. Scholz. The subjective 
criticisms mixed up in the notes, cannot be pronounced as either very useful 
or very satisfactory, and will serve to show how hard it is to find in one and 
the same person the patient and laborious paleographer and the sound and 
sagacious. critic. Still we owe much to Dr. Tischendorf, and it is probable 
shall have to owe much more ;? his unwearied labors command our highest 
respect, and may only the more make us regret that they are not set off by a 
greater Christian courtesy in his general tone, and by more forbearance 
towards those who feel it their duty to differ from him. 

The last addition to the present edition which it is here necessary to specify 
is, perhaps, the most: important, — systematic reference to the sermons and 
treatises of our best English divines. This, it will be remembered, appeared 
to some extent in the first edition, and has always formed a feature of these 
commentaries ; still Iam now enabled to give to the reader the results of a 
wider reading, and to entertain the hope that he will find but few really 
valuable illustrations from our best divines overlooked in the present volume. 
All I have done, however, is only in the way of reference. Much I regret 
that neither space, nor the general character of the commentary, enable me to 
make long quotations: I will repeat, however, what I have said elsewhere, that, 
as the references have been made with great care and consideration, I venture 
to think that the reader who will take the trouble of consulting the writers in 
the places referred to, will find himself abundantly rewarded for his labor. 


1 In deference to the opinion and present usage of this critic, I now designate the MS. of 
St. Paul’s Epp. formerly marked J. in the critical editions, by the new mark L. 

2 For a brief notice of the discovery by Dr. Tischendorf of a MS. of the whole New Test. 
of an antiquity said to be as great as that of B, see the Literary Churchman for July 16, 1859, 
Ρ. 258; Bib. Sacra, vol. xvi. 639. 2 


Χ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


I have already received many kind recognitions of the use which this class 
of references has proved to students in Theology ; and I now continue them 
with renewed interest, feeling day by day more assured that in these latter 
times it is to our own great divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
we must go for our Theology; and that it is from them alone that we can 
provide ourselves with preservatives against the unsound, vaunting, and 
humanitarian theosophy that is such a melancholy and yet such a popular 
characteristic of our own times. 

Nothing now remains for me, except to notice briefly the works of fellow- 
laborers that have appeared since the publication of the first edition. 

A new edition has recently appeared by Harless, but, as the author him- 
self apprizes us, too little changed to need any further notice than what has 
already appeared in the original Preface to this work. A very useful edition 
for the general reader has also appeared in America, from the pen of the 
estimable Dr. Turner, but is too different in its principles of interpretation 
to have been of much use to me in a critical and grammatical commentary 
such as the present. To two commentaries, however, which have appeared 
in this country, during the interval I have alluded to, I have paid very great 
attention. The first is the Third Volume of my friend Dean Alford’s Com- 
mentary; the second is the Third Part of Canon Wordsworth’s Commentary, 
— works which both deserve and have received the high approbation of all 
biblical students ; the former for its able and attractive exegesis, the latter 
for its valuable citations from Patristic and English Divinity, and both for 
their accurate scholarship, and sound and intelligent criticism. 

I now commend myself to the kind judgment of my readers ; and with the 
hope, that some time in the course of the following year, if God be pleased 
to give me health and strength, I may be able to complete another portion of 
my laborious undertaking, I here bring to its close a work that has claimed 
my incessant attention for some months. 

May the blessing of God rest on this reiippearance of a lowly tribute to His 
Honor and Glory; — may its errors and shortcomings be forgiven, and its 
broken and partial glimpses of Divine Truth be permitted to excite in others 
a deeper reverence for the Eternal Word, and a more earnest longing for 
the full and perfect Day. 


CAMBRIDGE, AUGUST, 1859. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE sublime epistle to the Ephesians was written by St. Paul during his 
first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16), and stands second or more probably 
third in the third of the four groups into which the Epistles of St. Paul may 
be conveniently divided. The Ep. to the Colossians (Meyer Linleit. p. 18, 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 450 sq.), and also that to Philemon, appear to have 
immediately preceded, while that to the Philippians seems to have succeeded 
after an interval of perhaps a year, when the Apostle’s confinement assumed 
a harsher character, and his prospects seemed in some measure more cheerless 
(Phil. i. 20). 

It was thus written about the year A. Ρ. 62, and was conveyed to the 
Church of Ephesus by Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21), either while on his way to 
deliver the Epistles addressed respectively to the Colossians and to Philemon, 
or, as has been thought more probable (Meyer LEinleit. p. 17), on his return 
after having performed that duty. 

That the Epistle was addressed to the Christians of the important city of 
Ephesus seems scarcely open to serious doubt. Both the critical arguments 
(see note on ch. i. 1) and the nearly unanimous consent of the early Church 
(Iren. Her. v. 2, 3, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 8, Vol. I. p. 592, ed. Pott., Orig. 
Cels. Vol. I. p. 458, ed. Bened.) are so decidedly in favor of such a destina- 
tion, that we scarcely seem warranted in calling in question a statement so 
strongly supported. Still the omission of greetings and personal notices in 
an Epistle sent from the founder of the Church of Ephesus (Acts xix. i. sq., 
comp. xviii. 19) to converts with whom he had abode nearly three years 
(Acts xx. 31) seems so very striking and noticeable, that we may perhaps 
so far adopt the opinion of Usher (Annal. ann. 4068) and of several recent 
expositors, that this Epistle, though addressed to the Christians at Ephesus, 
was still designed for circulation in all the churches conterminous to or de- 
pendent on that city, and was thus left studiously general in form, and free 


XI INTRODUCTION. 


from distinctive notices. Individual greetings and other messages of affec- 
tion might well have been entrusted to a bearer who was specially commis- 
sioned to inform the receivers of the Epistle upon all points connected with 
the personal state of the Apostle (ch. vi. 21). 

The Epistle does not appear to have been called forth by any particular 
circumstances, nor to have involved any warning against the peculiarities of 
Jewish or Eastern Philosophy, but was designed to set forth the origin and 
development of the Church of Christ, and to display to the Christian dweller 
under the shadow of the great temple of Diana the unity and beauty of that 
transcendently more glorious spiritual temple (ch. ii. 20) of which Christ 
Himself was the head corner-stone, and the saints portions of the superstrue- 
ture. That it should also contain many thoughts nearly identical with those 
expressed in the Epistle to the Colossians is readily accounted for by the 
fact that both were written nearly at the same time, and both addressed to 
Churches which were sufficiently near to each other to have had many things 
in common, especially in the relations of social and domestic life. 

The genuineness and authenticity admit of no reasonable doubt. The tes- 
timonies of the Early Church are unusually strong and persistent (see reff. 
above, and add Tertull. de Prescr. ch. xxxvi., Hippol. Refut. Her. p. 198, 
ed. Oxf.), and have never been called in question till comparatively recent 
times. The objections are purely of a subjective character, being mainly 
founded on imaginary weaknesses in style or equally imaginary references 
to early Gnosticism, and have been so fairly and fully confuted that they 
can no longer be considered to deserve any serious attention; see esp. 
Meyer, Einleit. p. 19 sq., Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 352 sq., Alford, Pro- 
legom. p. 8. 

The arguments in favor of the Epistle having been written at Caesarea 
will be found in Meyer, Einlcit. § 2, but are far from convincing. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


CHAPTER I.1. 


Apostolic 
salutation. 


ioe ον hegeneteen ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ 


δελήματος Θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς 

1. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] Tisch. and A/f. have enclosed these words in brackets, but scarcely 
with sufficient reason. Without entering into detailed arguments, it may be suffi- 
cient to remark, that the facts about which all now seem agreed are as follows : — 
(1) As far as our present collations can be depended upon, all the MSS., mss,, and 
Vv., are unanimous in favor of the insertion, except B, where the words are sup- 
plied on the margin by a second hand (Tisch.), and 67, where they appear in the 
text, but with diacritical marks indicative of suspicion: — (2) Basil of Cappad. 
certainly did not find the words ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν, Hunom. τι. 19. 
Bp. Middleton supposes Basil only appeals to the ancient MSS. as containing 
τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν E®., not simply τοῖς ἐν ἜΦ. ; comp. Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1841, 
p- 423: this opinion, however, has no diplomatic support of any kind, and cannot 
fairly and logically be deduced from the words of Basil; see Meyer, Hinleit. p. 2, 
note :— (3) Tertullian (Mare. v. 11.17) possibly was not aware of their existence ; 
it is uncritical to say more. His words, ‘veritas Ecclesix,’ do not necessarily 
imply an absence of diplomatic evidence, nor can ‘interpolare’ (comp. JJare. rv, 
1, v. 21) be pressed : —(4) Origen (Caten. Vol. 11. p. 102) appears to have ac- 
cepted the omission, as he comments on the peculiarity of the expression τοῖς ἁγίοις 
τοῖς οὖσι; see Tisch. (ed. 7). The internal evidence, such as absence of greetings 
and personal notices, is of more importance. Still, both combined cannot be con- 
sidered sufficient to overthrow the vast preponderance of external authority, and 
the appy. unanimous tradition of the early Church, that this Ep. was addressed to 


Crap. I. 1. δοῦλος X.1.] ‘a servant 
of Jesus Christ:’ gen. not of ablation 
(the source from which his commission 


Acts xxvii. 23, οὗ εἰμί, Rom. i. 1, δοῦλος 
*I. X., and comp. notes on Phil.i.1. The 
distinction between these forms of the 


proceeded ; comp. Stier zn /oc.), but sim- 
ply of possession, in ref. to the Master 
whose servant and minister he was ; see 


gen. (which Eadie appears not to have 
fully felt) is often faintly marked (com- 
pare Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16, 17); still 


EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 1. 


14 


οὖν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστος ἐν Χριστῷ Inood. 
the Ephesians (Iren. Her, ν. 2, 8, Clem. Al. Strom. τν. 8, Tertull. J. c., Origen, 
Cels. 111. p. 458, ed. Ben.). We therefore retain the words as genuine, and ascribe 
their omission in B to an early exercise of criticism founded on supposed internal 
evidence, traces of which are found in Theodoret, Praf. in Eph.: comp. Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 442 sq. The different theories and attempts to reconcile conflicting 
evidence will be found in Meyer, Finleit. § 1, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 432 sq., and 
Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 328 sq. Of the many hypotheses, that of Harless 
(Linleit. p. 57) —that the Ep. was designed not only for the Ephesians, but for the 


Churches dependent on Ephesus, or the Christians who had already been converted 


there — is perhaps the most plausible. 


Harless seems quite correct in saying 
that the idea of authorization does not 
depend simply on the gen., but on the 
modal clauses κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, 1 Tim. i. 1, 
which are commonly attached: comp, 
Gal. i. 1, where the nature of the rela- 
tions between the Apostle and his con- 
verts suggests language of unusual pre- 
cision. διὰ ϑελήματο»κ) ‘by 
the will of God ;’ modal clause appended 
to the preceding words, not so much to 
enhance his apostolic authority (comp. 
Alf.), as in that thankful remembrance 
of God’s power and grace, which any 
allusion to his ministerial office was sure 
to awaken in the Apostle’s heart: comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. i. 15. These and 
the preceding words occur in the same 
order and connection in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. 
ioe 2) Dima le compare i) Corie: 
Though it is not possible to doubt that 
the Apostle, in addressing different 
Churches or individuals, designedly 
adopted the same or different modes of 
salutation, still it is not in all cases easy 
to trace, from external considerations, 
the reasons for the choice ; comp. notes 
on’ Col. i. 1. Riickert, who has slightly 
touched on the subject (on Gal. i. 1), 
refers the Apostle’s present specification 
of his authority, διὰ ded. ©., to the en- 
cyclical character of the Epistle. As 
this character, though probable (see crit. 
note), is merely hypothetical, it will be 
safer, and perhaps more natural, to 
adopt the more general explanation 


above alluded to; see Meyer on 1 Cor. 
AMINE τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘to the 
Saints.’ Christians are appy. called 
ἅγιοι in the N. T. in three senses; (a) 
generally, as members of a visible and 
local community devoted to God’s ser- 
vice (Acts ix. 32, xxvi. 10, Rom. xv. 
20), and, as such,.united in a common 
outward profession of faith (1 Cor. i. 2; 
see Chrys. on Rom. i. 7); (b) more spe- 
cifically, as members of a spiritual com- 
munity (Col. iii. 12,1 Pet. ii. 9); and 
(c) as also in many cases having per- 
sonal and individual sanctity; comp. 
ver. 4, see Fell, in/oc. The context will 
generally show which of these ideas pre- 
dominates. In salutations like the pres- 
ent, ἅγιος appears used in its most com- 
prehensive sense, as involving the idea 
of a visible (hence the local predicate), 
and also (as the complementary clause 
καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Xp. Ἴ. suggests) that of a 
spiritual and holy community ; see Col. 
i. 1, and esp. 1 Cor. i. 2, where defining 
clauses involving these different ideas 
are grouped round κλητοῖς ἁγίοις : comp. 
Thorndike, Review, 1. 33, Vol. 1. p. 656 
(A. C. Libr.), and Davenant on Col. i. 2. 
πιστοῖς ἐν X. Ἴ.] ‘faithful, sc. believing, 
in Jesus Christ.’ Πιστός is not here in 
its general and classical sense, ‘qui 
fidem prestat’ (Grot., Alf.), but its par- 
ticular and theological sense, ‘ qui fidem 
habet’ comp. Syr.), a meaning which it 
indisputably bears in several passages in 
the N. T.; e.g. John’ xx. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 


Cuap. I. 2, 8. 


* χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ 
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


Blessed be God who has 
predestinated us to the 


EPHESIANS. 


15 


see aee XN a \ e ~ \ ͵ 
εὑρηνή ΟἼΤΟῸ Θεοῦ TAT pos μων Kal Κυρίου 


ὃ Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου 


adoption of sons, redeemed us by Christ’s blood, revealed to us His eternal purpose of uniting all in Him, and 
has commenced its fulfilment by sealing with his Spirit both Jew and Gentile. 


15, Gal. iii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 3 (not 1 Tim. 
i. 12, Eadie), Titus i. 6, etc.; compare 
Wisdom i. 14, Psalm ec. 6, and see Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 741. 

ἐν Χριστῷ implies union, fellowship, 
with Christ (see notes on Gal. ii. 17), and 
qualifies only the more restricted term, 
πιστός, not ἅγιος (Phil. i. 1.) and πιστός 
(Harl., Meier). The clause is not, how- 
ever, on the one hand, a mere epexegesis 
of aylos (Beza), nor, on the other, a 
specification of anether and separate 
class (Stier), but completes the descrip- 
tion of the ἅγιοι, by the addition of a 
second and more distinctive predication ; 
see Meyer in loc. Πιστὸς ἐν Xp. thus 
approximates in meaning to πιστεύων εἰς 
Xp. (Gal. ii. 16), except that the latter 
involves a closer connection of the verb 
and the prep. (mor. εἰς --- Xp.), and 
points rather to an act of the will, while 
the former involves a closer connection 
of the prep. and the noun (mor. — ἐν 
Xp.), and marks a state and condition : 
see Fritz. Marc. p. 175, and Eadie zn loc , 
where the full force of the preposition is 
eloquently expanded. 

2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] ‘Grace 
to you and peace;’ scil. εἴη not ἔστω 
(Meier, Holzh.), which, though not un- 
tenable (Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 5, p. 392: 
comp. 2 Chron. ix. 8), is far less suitable 
and even less usual than the optative ; 
see 1 Pet. i..2,2 Pet. i. 2; Jude 2, and 
comp. 2 John 3, where, however, ἔσται 
gives the wish the character of a definite 
expectation. The suggestion of Stier 
that χάρις and εἰρήνη refer respectively to 
the ἅγιοι and πιστοί does not seem tena- 
ble, as the formula is so common with- 
out any such antecedents (Rom. i. 7, 1 
Cor. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2, al.); still they 
must not be diluted into mere equiva- 


lents of the ordinary forms of salutation 
(Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. 1. p. 98): Xapis 
expresses God’s love toward man; εἰ- 
ρήνη, the state of peace and blessedness 
which results from it; εἰρηνεύει yap πρὸς 
τὸν Θεὸν ὃ Thy εὐαγγελικὴν ἀσπασάμενος 
πολιτείαν, Theodoret, Rom. i. 8: sce 
notes on Gal. i. 3. It may be observed 
that as this form is regularly maintained 
in all St. Paul’s Epp. to Churches (Phi- 
lem. 3 is no exception, being addressed 
also τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον ἐκκλησίᾳ), while in 1 
Rima ἂς 25 ΘΟ Time 1.9. ὙΠ}: ε1.} 45 (eck 
Lachm.), the more personal term ἔλεος is 
added, the latter might seem the form 
addressed to individuals, the former to 
communities ; comp. too Rev. i. 4, 2 John 
3, but consider Jude 2, Gal. vi. 16, and 
observe that in Tit. /. c. the longer read- 
ing is more than doubtful. St. James 
alone adopts the usual formula, χαίρειν : 
in 3 John i. 2 the salutation passes into 
a prayer. καὶ Κυρίου] Scil. 
καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου k. τ. A., SO expressly Syr., 
Arm., both of which repeat the preposi- 
tion. The Socinian interpretation, καὶ 
(πατρὸς) Kup., is grammatically admissi- 
ble, but m a high degree forced and 
improbable: see esp. Tit. i. 4, and com- 
pare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. il. 16. 

3. εὐλογητ 46s) ‘Blessed,—scil. ἔστω 
(2 Chron. ix. 8), or εἴη (Job i. 21, Psalm 
exii. 2): the verb is, however, commonly 
omitted in this and similar forms of dox- 
ology ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 3. In this sol- 
emn ascription of praise εὐλογητός (ἐπαι- 
νεῖσϑαι καὶ ϑαυμάζεσϑαι ἄξιος, Theod.- 
Mops.), as its position shows, has the 
principal emphasis, the rule of Fritz. 
(Mom. ix. 5, Vol. 11. 274) being appy. 
reasonable — that εὐλογητός or εὐλογη- 
μένος will occupy the first or some suc- 
ceeding place in the sentence, according 


10 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 3. 


5 A ἘΠ lol xX lal € ὖλ, ς a ’ , A, ΄ 
ἡμῶν ]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ εὐλογῆσας ἡμᾶς εν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευ- 


as the emphasis rests on the predicate 
(as it commonly does), or on the substan- 
tive; comp. 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ἰ. ¢., 
Job /. c., and esp. Psalm /. ¢., which are 
thus more satisfactorily explained than 
by a supposed limitation of position in 
consequence of the inserted copula (Alf. 
on Rom. ix. 5). It has been re- 
marked by Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 3 (comp. 
Harless), that in the N. T. εὐλογητός is 
only applied to God, εὐλογημένος to 
man: it may be added that in the LXX, 
the latter is occasionally applied to God, 
but never the former to man. For a 
good analysis of the present paragraph, 
in which the relations of the Church to 
the three persons of the blessed Trinity 
‘are distinctly unfolded, see Alford in oc. 
Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘God and 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ It 
is doubtful whether in this formula (which 
Riick. needlessly terms ‘paulinisch,’ see 
1 Pet. i. 3) the gen. depends (a) on both 
(Theoph.), or (b) only on the latter 
(Syr., 4eth., Theod.-Mops. 1, Theodoret) 
of the two nominatives. 
it undecided. 


Chrys. leaves 
Grammatical considera- 
tions do not assist us; for, on the one 
hand, the position of the article before 
Θεὸς rather than Πατὴρ (Olsh.) does not 
invalidate the latter interpretation (com- 
pare Winer. Gr. § 19. 3, p. 115 note), 
nor the omission of τέ before καὶ (Har- 
less) the former; the usual ‘ preparative 
force of τὲ (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 
98, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 730) being 
here obviously out of place. To the 
former interpretation, Θεὸς μέν, ὧς capKw- 
ϑέντος, πατὴρ δέ, ws Θεοῦ λόγου, there 
ean be no doctrinal objections (see verse 
17, John xx. 17, and compare Olsh. on 
Matth. xxi. 31, 32), but from the consid- 
erations suggested on Gal. 1. 4, as well 
as from the fact that, except in ver. 17, 
St. Paul has not elsewhere so designated 
the Father, the latter construction seems 


decidedly preferable. On the 
most suitable translation, see notes on 
Gal. i. 4. (Transl.). 
σας nuas| ‘who blessed us;’ ‘antanac- 
lasis ; aliter nobis benedixit Deus, aliter 
nos benedicimus Illi, Bengel. The 
aorist participle (where the aoristic force 
is always least obscure, Bernhardy, Synt. 
x. 9, p. 383) refers to the counsels of the 
Father as graciously completed in the 
Redemption, and is thus neither used (a) 
for a pres. (Holzh.) — an untenable posi- 
tion, except in a sense and under limita- 
tions (Scheuerl. Syntax, § 32. 2, p. 331) 
which would here be doctrinally unsuita- 
ble; nor (δ) as marking ‘a customary 
or repeated act’ (Eadie) —a meaning 
which the aorist never appears to bear in 
the N. T.; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 40. 4. 1. p. 
248. The reference of ἡμᾶς can scarcely 
be doubtful: it cannot refer to St. Paul 
(Koppe), — for comp. κἀγώ, ver. 15, — 
but, as the inclusive nature of the con- 
text (ver. 14, 11, 12) distinctly implies, 
must be extended to Christians gener- 
rally. No fixed rules can be laid down 
as to the reference of the plural pro- 
snoun: this must always be determined 
by the context. 


ὁ evAoyn- 


ἐν πάσῃ εὖλο- 
γίᾳ πνευματικῇ] ‘with every blessing 
of the Spirit ; agency by which the bless- 
ing was imparted, ἐν here being appy-. 
instrumental (see notes on 1 Thess, iv. 
18), and perhaps not without some par- 
allelism to the Hebrew 2 5-2; comp. the 
analogous construction, Tobit viii. 15, 
and James iii. 9, where, however, the 
instrumental sense is much more dis- 
tinct. The meaning and force of πνεὺ- 
ματικῇ is slightly doubtful. Chrys. and 
Theod.-Mops. find in it an antithesis to 
the blessings of the Old Covenant (τὴν 
᾿Ιουδαϊκὴν ἐνταῦϑα αἰνίττεται: εὐλογία μὲν 
γὰρ ἣν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πνευματική; Chrys. ; 
comp. Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 756) ; so 
distinctly Syr., Eth., and with a detailed 


Υ, 


Cuap. I. 4. 


EPHESIANS. 17 


ματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, * καὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν 


enumeration of the blessings, Theodoret, 
in loc. It seems, however, much 
more in accordance both with the pres- 
ent context and with the prevailing 
usage of the N. T. (see Rom. i. 11, 
χάρισμα πνευματικόν, and 1 Cor. xii. 1 
τῶν πνευματικῶν, compared with ver. 
11), to refer the epithet directly to the 
Holy Spirit (Joel iii. 1 sq., Acts ii. 16). 
Bengel has not failed to notice the allu- 
sion to the Trinity, which, as Stier (Vol. 
τ. p. 57) has clearly shown, pervades the 
whole of this sublime Epistle. ἐν 
τοῖς ἐπουρανίοι 9] ‘inheavenly regions ; 


ony, LA oe > H 
Ladoms [in colo], Syr., ‘in ceelis,’ 


‘Eth. The exact meaning of these 
words is doubtful. Many of the ancient, 
and several modern expositors, explain 
τὰ ἐπουράνια, as ‘heavenly blessings ἡ 
(ἐπουράνια yap τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα, Theo- 
doret), ‘heavenly institutions’ (J. John- 
son, Unbl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 198, A. C. 
Libr.), and thus, as in ethical contrast to 
τὰ ἐπίγεια (Chrys.); see John iii. 12, but 
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40, where the same 
words are in physical contrast. This is 
not grammatically untenable, and would 
not require the omission of τοῖς (Riick., 
Eadie, al.), as the article would thus 
only correctly designate the class; see 
Middleton, Greek Art. m1. 2. 2, p. 40, 
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 3, p. 99. 
As, however, such a specification of the 
sphere, and thence of the spiritual char- 
acter of the action would seem superflu- 
ous after the definite words immediately 
preceding, —as in the four other pas- 
sages in this Ep. (i. 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, and 
vi. 12, but contr. Chrys.) the expression 
seems obviously local, and lastly, —as 
throughout St. Paul’s Epp. (even 2 Tim. 
iv. 18) ἐπουράνιος has that local or phys- 
ical force which the preposition ἐπὶ (Har- 
less) would also seem further to suggest, 
it will be best, both from contextual and 


lexical reasons to retain that meaning in 
the present case. Ἔν τοῖς ἐπουρ. must 
then here be referred as a local predica- 
tion to εὐλογ. mvevu., defining, broadly 
and comprehensively the region and 
sphere where our true home is (Phil. iii. 
20), where our hope is laid up (Col. i. 
5), and whence the blessings of the 
Spirit, the δωρεὰ ἣ ἐπουράνιος (Heb. vi. 
4), truly come: see notes to Transl. 

ἐν Χριστῷ) Not for διὰ Xp. (Chrys., 
Hamm.), but, as in ver. 1, ‘in Christ ;’ 
“in quo uno spirituali et sanctifica bene- 
dictione donamur,’ Beza. Thus εὐλογή- 
σας contains the predication of time 
(Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq), ἐν εὐλογ. 
πνευμ. the predication of manner, more 
exactly defined by the local predication 
ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., while ἐν Xp. is that mys- 
tical predication which, as Stier well ob- 
serves, ‘is the very soul of this Epistle,’ 
and involves all other conceptions in 
itself. For a good example of this spe- 
cies of analysis of clauses and sentences, 
see Donalds. Crat. § 304. 

4. kadds] ‘even as,’ ‘sicut’ Clarom, 
Vulg., Copt., al.; explanation and ex- 
pansion of the preceding εὐλογήσας κ. τ. 
A., the particle καϑώς, which in most 
cases has a purely modal, appearing here 
to have also a slightly explanatory or 
even casual force (‘inasmuch as’), and 
to mark not only the accordance, but 
the necessary connection of the εὐλογία 
with the ἐκλογή ; see Rom. i. 28, 1 Cor. 
i. 6, and compare καϑότε (used only by 
St. Luke), which has both a modal 
(Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) and a causal (Acts 
ii. 24) meaning. The form καϑώς is not 
found in the older Attic writers, or in 
Lucian ; see Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 426, and 
notes on Gal. ili. 6. ἐξελέξατο 
ἡ μᾷᾶ 9] ‘chose us out for Himself;’ ‘ele- 
git, Clarom., Vulg., al., — but with some 
sacrifice of the fullest meaning. With- 
out entering into the profound dogmat- 


18 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 4. 


> A ἣν Β λῆ , - « - e / \ BJ , 
αὐτῷ “Προ καταβολῆς κοσμου, ELVAL ἡμᾶς AYLOUS καὶ ἀμωμοὺῦυς 


ical questions connected with the mean- 
ing of this verb (only used by St. Paul, 
here and 1 Cor. i. 27), it may be simply 
observed that in ἐξελέξατο three ideas 
are suggested ; — (a) selection (not ne- 
cessarily of individuals; see Ebrard, 
Dogm. ὃ 560), from, out of, others not 
chosen (ἐκ tod κόσμου, John xv. 19; 
contr. Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 198), 
suggested by the plain meaning of the 
word ; — (Ὁ) simple unrestricted preteri- 
tion of the act (alike irrespective of du- 
ration or relation, Bernhardy, Syntax, x. 
8, p. 380, and esp. Fritz. de Aor. p. 17 
sq.), conveyed by the tense, and further 
heightened by the ‘timelessness ’ (Olsh.) 
of the quasi-temporal predication πρὸ 
καταβολῆς; compare 2 Thess. ii. 13, 
εἵλατο am ἀρχῆς: God is 6 καλῶν (1 
Thess. ii. 2), as well as 6 καλέσας (Gal. 
i. 6), but not ὁ ἐκλεγόμενοπ; —(c) re- 
flexive action (for Himself; comp. Eph. 
v. 27, Rev. xxi. 2), implied by the 
voice. While the primary mean- 
ing of ἐκλέγ. and similar words is un- 
doubtedly to be looked for in their gen- 
eral and national references in the O. T. 
(Usteri Lehrbegr. 11. 2. 2, p. 271, Knapp, 
Script. Var. Arg. p. 556), the modal 
clauses with which they are combined 
show the deeper and more distinctive 
sense in which they are used in the New 
Testament. On this profound subject, 
and on the estates of man (the estate of 
wrath, of reconciliation, and of election) 
see esp. Jackson, Creed, x. 37, 11 56.» 
Vol. 1x. p. 312 sq., and comp. Ham- 
mond on God’s Grace, Vol. τ. p. 667 sq. 
(Lond. 1674), and Laurence, Bampt. 
Lect. for 1804. ἐν αὐτῷ] Not 
for δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, scil. διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίσ- 
tews (Chrys., Hamm.), nor for εἰς αὐτὸν 
(comp. A®th.), nor yet with an instru- 
mental foree (Arm.), but, as Olsh. cor- 
rectly and profoundly explains it, ‘in 
Him, —in Christ, as the head and repre- 


sentative of spiritual, as Adam was the 
representative of natural humanity ; 
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 22. πρό 
καταβολῆς κόσμου] This expres- 
sion, used three times in the N. T. (John 
Xvii, 24, 1 Pet. i. 20), here serves to de- 
fine the archetypal character of the New 
Dispensation, and the wide gulf that 
separated the πρόϑεσις πρὸ χρόνων aiw- 
νίων (2 Tim. i. 9) of God with respect to 
Christians, from His temporal ἐκλογὴ of 
the Jews; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 
Ρ. 522 (Bohn). εἶναι ἡμᾶς kK. 
τ. A.| ‘that we should be holy and blame- 
less ;’ object contemplated by God in 
His gracious éxAoyh, the infin. being 
that of intention; scil. ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἵνα 
ἅγιοι ὦμεν καὶ ἄμωμοι, Chrys.; comp. 2 
Cor. xi. 2, Col. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 45.1, p. 284, Donalds. Gr. § 607. a, 
p. 598. ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους 
‘holy and blameless ;’ positive and nega- 
tive aspects of true Christian life. The 
meaning of ἄμωμος (ἄμεμπτος: καϑαρόΞ" 
ἄψεκτος, Hesych.) is slightly doubtful ; 
it may be (a) ‘inculpatus,’ ὁ ἀνεπίληπτον 
βίον ἔχων, Chrys., in accordance with its 
derivation (μῶμος μέμφομαι), or (b) “πι- 
maculatus’ (Vulg., Clarom., Arm. ; 
comp. Syr., Goth.), with possible refer- 
ence to its application in the LXX to 
victims, Lev. i. 10, xxii. 19; comp. 1 
Mace. iv. 42, ἱερεῖς ἀμώμους, and see 
Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The latter mean- 
ing is strongly supported by 1 Pet. i. 19, 
ἀμνοῦ ἂμώμου και ἀσπίλου, and Heb. ix. 
14: still, as there is here no sacrificial 
allusion directly or indirectly (comp. ch. 
y. 27), it seems best to retain the simple 
etymological meaning; see Col. i. 22, 
ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους, and compare 
Wisd χ. 15, λαὸν ὅσιον καὶ σπέρμα ἄμεμπ- 
τον. It is more doubtful whether 
these epithets point to a moral condition, 
i. e. to the righteousness of sanctification 
(Chrys, Hamm.), or to the imputed 


Cnap. I. 5. 


EPHESIANS. 


19 


, > a 2 Ske? Be / enean > ¢ ΄, Ὗ 
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἀγάπῃ " προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς vioSeciav διὰ 


righteousness of Christ, (Olsh., Mey.) 
The former reference seems most conso- 
nant both with St. Paul's general teach- 
ing (1 Thess. iv. 7) and the obvious 
inferences that may be drawn from other 
passages in the N. T., 1 Pet. i. 16, Rey. 
xxii. 11; see Stier zn loc., and on the 
distinction between sanctifying and justi- 
fying righteousness, the excellent re- 
marks of Hooker, Serm. 11. 6. Vol. 111. 
p- 611. 
‘before Him;’ ‘id est vere, sincere,’ 
Beza; not what men, but what God 
esteems as such. 


κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] 


ἁγιωσύνην ζητεῖ ἣν 6 
τοῦ Θεοῦ ὕφϑαλμος ὁρᾷ Chrys. The form 
αὐτοῦ is here to be preferred, as the refer- 
ence to the subject is obviously remote 
and unemphatic; comp. Bremi, Jahrb. 
der Philol. ix. p. 171 (Winer). The dis- 
tinction, however, between the proper 
use of these two forms cannot be rigor- 
ously defined ; see Buttm. Mid. (Excurs. 
x) p. 140, and Tisch. Prolegom. p. 
LVIII. ἐν ἀγάπῃ may be joined with 
ἐξελέξατο ; more probably with ay. καὶ 
ἀμώμ. (Vulg., Copt.); but appy. most 
probably with προορίσας (Syr., Chrys., 
Theod.), as St Paul’s object seems here 
not so much to define the nature of the 
required ἁγιωσύνη and dueudia on the 
part of man, as to reveal the transcen- 
dent principle of Love which informed 
the προορισμὸς of God; καὶ προεῖδεν ἡμᾶς 
καὶ ἠγάπησε, Theod., compare Theod.- 
Mops. The arguments derived from 
the collocation of the words are not deci- 
sive, for ἐν ἀγάπῃ could as well be joined 
with Gy. καὶ du. here, as ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ with 
ἀμέμπτους, 1 Thess. iii. 13; and again 
could as easily precede (emphatically) 
mpoopicas here, as it does ἐῤῥιζωμένοι ch. 
iii. 18. Lastly, it cannot be said that 
the second modal clause, κατὰ τὴν εὐδ. 
is thus superfluous (Meier): the two 
clauses point to two different attributes ; 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ to the loving Mercy, κατὰ τὴν 


evs. to the sovereign Power of God. 
For a good defence of the second form 
of connection see Alford in loc. 

5. προορίσας pas] ‘having fore- 


? 7. 6. not ‘predestinans, 


ordained us: 
Beng., but ‘quum predestinasset, Syr.- 
Phil., the participle being most naturally 
regarded as temporal, not modal, and its 
action as prior to, not synchronous with 
(as in ver. 9) that of é&eA.; comp. Rom. 
viii. 29, 30, and see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 
9, p. 383, Donalds. Gr. ὃ 574 sq. With 
regard to the prep. it would certainly 
seem that πρὸ does not refer to others 
(Baumg.), nor, appy., to existence be- 
fore time (Eadie), but simply to the 
realization of the event: the decree ex- 
isted before the object of it came into 
outward manifestation; comp. προηλπι- 
κότας, ver. 12, and see Olsh. on Rom. ix. 
1. The distinction between ἐκλογὴ and 
προορισμὸς is thus drawn by Scherzer 
(cited by Wolf); ‘differunt tantum ra- 
tione ordinativa et objectiva,’—the ἐκ of 
the former referring to the mass from 
whom the selection was made, the πρὸ 
of the latter to the preéxistence and pri- 
ority of the decree. On προορισμός, ete., 
see Petavius, Theol. Dogm. ix. 1, Vol. 1. 
p- 565 sq., and Laurence, Bampt. Lect. 
Vill. p. 169 sq. eis viodsedla| 
‘ for adoption,’ scil. ἵνα αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ Aeyol[w] 
peda καὶ χρηματίζωμεν, Theod.-Mops. ; 
υἱοϑεσία, however, not being merely son- 
ship (Ust. Lehrb. 11. 1, 2, p. 186), but as 
usual, ‘adoptionem filiorum, Vulg.; see 
notes on Gal. iv. 5, and Neander, Plant- 
ing, Vol. τ. p. 477 (Bohn). 
αὐτόν], ‘unto Him;’ comp. Col. i. 20, 
ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα eis αὐτόν. As 
the exact meaning of these words is 
slightly obscure, it will be best to pre- 
mise the following statements. (a) Eis 
υἱοῦ. . . . εἰς αὐτὸν must be regarded as a 
single compound clause expressive of 
the manner and nature of the mpoopic- 


᾽ 
eis 


20 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. ὁ. 


’ a fol \ \ a 
]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ δελήματος 


> la 5 al fal fe 7 
οὐτοῦ, “els ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἣ ἐχαρίτωσεν 


6. ἐν ἡ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DEF (om. ἢ) GKL; great majority of mss. ; 
Clarom., Vulg., Goth., Syr.-Phil., Arm., al.; Bas., Chrys., Theod., al. and rightly ; 
for ἧς, though found in AB; mss.; Syr., AZth.; Orig. (Cat.), Chrys. (1), al. 
(Lachm., Mey., Alf.), has weaker external support ; and on internal grounds, as a 
grammatical correction, seems very suspicious. The statement of Alf, that ‘a 
relative following a substantive is as often in a different case as the same, certainly 
cannot be substantiated ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 1, p. 197. 


μός; δι “Ino. and eis adr. being separate 
sub-clauses further defining the promi- 
nent idea eis υἱοϑεσίαν. (ὁ) Αὐτὸν (not 
αὑτὸν) is not to be referred to Christ (De 
W.), but, with the Greek expositors, to 
God. (c) Eis αὐτὸν is not merely equiv- 
alent to ἐν αὐτῷ (Beza), or 45, scil. 
jntn:> (Holzh.); nor is the favorite 
transl. of Meyer, ‘in reference to Him’ 
(comp. Rick), though, grammatically 
tenable (Winer, G7. ὃ 49. a, p. 354), by 
any means sufficient. In these deeper 
theological passages the prep. seems to 
bear its primary ( εἰς = evs Donalds. Crat. 
§ 170) and most comprehensive sense of 
‘to and znto’ (see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 
s.v.); the idea of approach (τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν 
ἀνάγουσαν, Theoph.) being also blended 
with, and heightened by, that of inward 
union; comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27. 

We may thus paraphrase, ‘ God predes- 
tinated us to be adopted as His sons; 
and that adoption came to us through 
Christ, and was to lead us unto, and 
unite us to God.’ Stier compares what 
he terms the bold expression, 2 Pet. i. 4. 
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν κ. τ. A.] ‘accord- 
ing to the good pleasure of His will,’ “86- 
cundum placitum (propositum, Vulg.) 
voluntatis sus,’ Clarom.; the prep. 
κατά, as usual, marking ‘rule, measure, 
accordance to,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 49 ἃ, p. 
357. The exact meaning of εὐδοκία is 
here doubtful. The Greek expositors 
(not Chrys.) refer it to the benevolentia 
(ἡ ἐπ᾽ εὐεργεσίᾳ βούλησις Cicum.), the 
Vulg., Syr, Goth. (‘leikainai’), al. to 


the voluntas liberrima of God. The lIat- 
ter meaning rarely, if ever (not even 
Ecclus. i. 27, xxxii. 5), occurs in the 
EXX; in the N. 7., however, though 
there are decided instances of the for- 
mer meaning, 6. g. Luke ii. 14 (not ‘le- 
titia,’ Fritz.), Phil. i. 15 (δι᾽ €d8. opp. to 
διὰ φϑόνον), still there is no reason to 
doubt (Harl.) that the latter occurs in 
Matth. xi. 26 (ϑέλησις καὶ ἀρέσκεια, 
Theoph.) Luke x. 21, and, probably, 
Phil. ii. 13. Thus the context must 
decide. As here and ver. 9 εὐδοκία 
seems to refer exclusively to the actor 
(προορίσας, γνωρίσα5), not to the objects 
of the action; it seems best with De 
Wette (mis-cited by Eadie) to adopt the 
latter meaning, though not in the ex- 
treme sense, τὸ σφοδρὸν ϑέλημα, as advo- 
cated by Chrys. In this the idea of good- 
ness (ἢ ἀρίστη καὶ καλλίστη τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἑκούσιος ϑέλησις, Etym. M.) is of course 
necessarily involved, but it does not 
form the prominent idea. For further 
details, see esp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 1, Vol. 
11. p. 369 sq., and Wordsw. zn loc. 

6. eis ἔπαινον xk. τ. A.| ‘for the 
praise of the glory of His grace, ‘in or 
rather ‘ad [Clarom.; see Madvig, Opusc. 
Acad. p. 167 sq.; comp. Hand, Tursell. 
Vol. 111. p. 317] laudem glorix gratize 
sux,’ Vulg.; ἵνα ἣ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα 
decx97, Chrys.: divine purpose of the 
προορισμός ; eis here denoting the ‘finis 
primarius ’ (Phil, i. 11), not ‘ consequens 
aliquid’ Grot., as in 1 Pet. i. 7. It is 
scarcely necessary to say that neither is 


δι 


Guar, J. 7: 


EPHESIANS. 91 


~ 


« “ > A 3 , 5 e ow» \ 9 λύ ὃ Ν “ 
ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἡγαπημενῳ, ᾿εν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ὠπολυτρωσιν OLA τοῦ 


ἔπαινος δόξης for ἔπαινος évdotos (Grot.), 
nor δόξα τῆς χάριτος for ἔνδοξος χάρις 
(Beza),— both of them weak, and, here 
especially, wholly inadmissible solutions. 
As Chrys. appears rightly to have felt, 
δόξης is a pure subst., and serves to 
specify that peculiar quality or attribute 
of the χάρις which forms the subject of 
praise; comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. obs. 
p. 211. Thus, then, of the three geni- 
tives, the first is that ‘of the object,’ or, 
more strictly speaking, ‘of the point of 
view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), 
while the two last are united (Winer, 
Gr. ὃ 30. 8.1, p. 172), and form a com- 
mon possessive genitive. Owing to the 
defining gen., the article is not indis- 
pensable ; see Winer, Gir. § 19. 2. ἢ, p. 
113, and compare Madvig, Synt., § 10. 
2. ἐν Al ‘inqué,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
not ‘e qua,’ Beza, or ‘qua,’ Arm. (in- 
strum. case); the antecedent here much 
more naturally marking the state in 
which, than the means by which God 
showed us His favor. ἐχαρίτω- 
σ εν] ‘He imparted His grace to us,’ ‘grat- 
iticavit,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largitus est,’ 
/Kth. The exact meaning of xapitdw is 
doubtful. From the analogy of verbs in 
éw, whether in reference to what is mate- 
rial (6. g. χρυσόω, etc.) or what is imma- 
terial (6. g. ϑανατόω, etc., see Harless), 
xapitéw must mean " χάριτι aliquem affi- 
cio.” As, however, χάρις is indetermi- 
nate, and may mean either the subjective 
state of the individual or the objective 
grace of God, ἐχαρίτωσε may still have 
two meanings ;—(a) ἐπεράστους ἐποίησε, 
Chrys., ‘gratis 5181 acceptos effecit, 
Beza; comp. Ecclus. ix. 8 (Alez.), appy. 
xviii. 17, Symm. Psalm xvii. 28, and 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 
1504 ; — or (b) gratid amplerus est, Beng., 
sim. Syr., ‘gratiz#, quam effudit:’ comp. 
Yuke i, 28. Both the context (comp. 
Alf.) and the prevailing meaning of 


χάρις in St. Paul’s Epp seem distinctly 
in favor of the latter meaning. On the 
use of the aor., comp. note on ἐξελέξατυ, 
ver. 4. ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημέν ῳ] ‘in 
the Beloved ;’ see Matth. iii. 17, John iii. 
16, and comp. Col. i. 13. Ἔν is not here 
interchangeable with διά (comp. Chrys.), 
or equivalent to propter (Grot., Locke), 
but retains its full primary meaning. 
Christ, as Olsh. well observes, 15. re- 
garded not only as the mediator, but as 
the true representative of mankind. 

7. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further illustra- 
tion and expansion of the preceding 
exapitwoev. Here again ἐν is neither 
instrumental (Arm.), nor identical im 
meaning with διά (Vatabl.). 
deed (Opuse. p. 184), adduces this pas- 
sage as an instance of this identity, and 
regards διὰ Tod atu. as a sort of epexege- 
sis of ἐν ὦ, ‘per quem,’ 7. e., eo quod 
sanguinem effudit,’ but such an explana- 
tion falls greatly short of the true mean- 
As usual, ἐν has here its primary 
it im- 


Fritz, in- 


ing. 
and fullest theological meaning : 
plies more than wnion with (Riick., Eadie); 
it points to Christ as the living sphere 
of redemption, while διὰ «. τ. A. refers 
to the outward means of it; comp. Rom. 
iii. 24. As Olsh. profoundly observes : 
‘we have not redemption in His work 
without His person, but in His person, 
with which His work forms a living 
unity ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 
note. ἔχομεν] ‘are having;’ 
present, and not without emphasis ; ‘ we 
are ever nceding and are ever having it,’ 
Eadie. 
(not our, Conyb.) redemption ;* scil. the 
long-promised, and now known and real- 
ized redemption. The use of this word 
is thus briefly but perspicuously eluci- 
dated by Usteri in Joc.: ‘Who is ran- 
somed? Men, from the punishment 
they deserved. What is the λύτρον 
(Matth. xx. 28, Mark x. 45,1 Tim. ii. 


τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν] ‘the 


22 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 8. 


“, A \ a 
αἵματος αὐτοῦ, THY ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ TO πλοῦτος 


A ΄, a e ΄ ᾽ aA 
τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, * ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ Kai 


6)? The blood of Christ. Τὸ whom is 
it paid? To God. Who pays it? 
Christ in the first place; though strictly 
God who sent Him; so, God through 
Christ ;’ Zehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 107; see col- 
lection of texts, Waterl. Doctrine of 
Euch. 1v. 8, Vol. tv. p. 513. We must 
not, however, too much limit the appli- 
cation of this important word. As the 
art. renders it impossible to explain it 
merely metonymice, ‘a redeemed state’ 
(comp. Corn. a Lap.), so it presents to 
us the conception of ‘redemption’ in its 
most general and abstract sense, alike 
from Satan, sin, and death; comp. Mid- 
dleton, Greek Art. v. 1., p. 90 (ed. Bose). 
διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ] ‘through 
His blood ;’ closer definition of the ἐν ᾧ, 
by a notice of the ‘causa medians,’ the 
blood of Christ, —that, without which 
there could have been no ἄφεσις : comp. 
Heb. x. 22, and see the sound remarks 
of Alf. and Wordsw. in A. ἰ. Thy 
ἄφεσιν κ. τ. λ. | ‘the forgiveness of our 
transgressions ;’ apposition to, and speci- 
fication of the essential character of the 
The distinction 
between ἄφεσις (condonatio) and πάρεσις 
(preetermissio, Rom iii. 25) is noticed by 
Trench, Synonym. § 33; more briefly 
but most acutely by Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. 
p. 199. Too much stress need not here 
be laid on the distinction between παρατπ- 


preceding ἀπολύτρωσις. 


τώματα and ἁμαρτίαι, for compare Col. i. 
14. Still the former so naturally point 
to sins on the side of commission, sinful 
acts, the latter to sins as the result of a 
state, sinful conditions, that it seems best 
(with Beza) to preserve the distinction 
in translation ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 1. 

χάριτος) ‘the 
certainly not per 
Hebraismum, for ‘abundans_ bonitas,’ 
(Grot.), but, with the usual meaning of 
the possessive gen., the riches which ap- 


τὸ πλοῦτος TIS 


3 


riches of His grace ; 


pertain to, are the property of His χάρι5. 
On the form πλοῦτος, here rightly re- 
tained by Tisch., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 9. 2. 
2, p. 61. It occurs again, Col. i. 27 
(strongly supported), Eph. iii. 8, 16 
(well supported), Eph. ii. 7, Phil. iv. 19, 
Col. ii. 2 (fairly), 2 Cor. viii. 2 (doubt- 
fully); comp. Tisch. Prolegom. p. Lv. 

8. ἧς ἐπερίσσευσ ε] ‘which He 
made to abound ;’ ‘ufarassau ganohida’ 
{abundanter concessit], Goth., ‘abundare 
fecit,’ Eth. Though περισσεύω is used 
intransitively by St. Paul, no less than 
twenty-two times, yet as it is certainly 
transitive in 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8,1 Thess. 
iii. 12 (comp. Athen. Dezpn. 11. 16 (42), 
περιττεύει Tas pas), and as there is no 
satisfactory instance in the N. T. of at- 
traction in the case of a verb joined with 
a dat. (Fritzsche’s explanation of Rom. 
iv. 17 is more than doubtful, and 1 Tim. 
iv. 6. ἧς (Lachn.) is only supported by 
A in opp. to CDFGKL), it seems better 
to adopt the latter meaning with Theod. 
(ἡμᾶς περικλύζει) and the Vy. above 
cited, than the intrans., with Syr., Vulg., 
Arm., and appy. Chrys. in loc. On the 
apparent violations of the law of attrac- 
tion in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 24. 
1, p. 148. 
φρονήσει] ‘in all wisdom and intelli- 
gence ;’? sphere and element in which the 
περίσσευσεν is evinced and realized. As 
there is some difficulty in (1) the mean- 
ing, (2) reference, and (3) connection of 
these words, it will be best to consider 
these points separately. (1) Πᾶσα σοφία 
can only mean ‘all wisdom,’ i. e., “every 
kind of,’ ‘all possible wisdom,’ not 
‘summa sapientia’ (Rosenm., Eadie), 
mas, as Harless correctly observes, al- 
ways denoting extension rather than in- 
tension, and thus often giving a concrete 
application to abstract nouns; comp. Col. 
iv. 12, and see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. 


ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ 


Cuap. I. 9. 


EPHESIANS. 93 


φρονήσει, “γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Δελήματος αὐτοῦ, 


101. The examples adduced by Eadie 
(Matth. xxviii. 18, Acts v. 25 (23), 1 
Tim. i. 15), do not in any way invyali- 
date this principle. Σοφία and φρόνησις 
are not synonymous (Homb.; compare 
Plato, Symp. 202 a) but may be thus 
distinguished: σοφία (cognate with σά- 
ons, sapio) denotes ‘ wisdom’ in its gen- 
eral sense, κοενῶς ἁπάντων μάϑησιν, Suid. 
(see 4 Mace. i. 16); φρόνησις is 
rather ‘intelligentia,’ ‘a right applica- 
tion of the φρήν᾽ (τὸ δύνασϑαι καλῶς Bov- 
λεύσασϑαι περὶ τὰ αὑτῷ ἀγαϑὰ καὶ συμφέ- 
ροντα, Aristot.),—in a word, an attribute 
or result of σοφία (ἡ δὲ σοφία ἀνδρὶ τίκτει 
φρόνησιν, Prov. x. 23), thus serving here 
(like ἀποκάλυψις ver. 17, σύνεσις Col. i. 
9) to define and limit the reference of the 
more general and comprehensive word. 
That σοφία is theoretical, φρόνησις prac- 
tical (Krebs ; comp. Aristot. Wthic. vi. 5, 
7, Cicero, Off. 11. 2), is too bald a dis- 
tinction ; for σοφία in its Christian appli- 
cation necessarily wears a practical as- 
pect, and may, in this respect, be as 
much contrasted with γνῶσις (1 Cor. 
viii. 1), as φρόνησις with the more nearly 
synonymous, σύνεσις, (Col i. 9); see notes 
to Transl., and comp. Beck, Seelent. 11. 
WOE yas (alt, (2) The reference is to 
man, not God (Alf.), for though φρόνη- 
ois might be applied to God (see Prov. 
iii. 19, Jer. x. 12, 1 Kings iii. 28), and 
ἐν cop. καὶ pov. might, symmetrically 
with ἐν ἀγάπῃ ver. 4, denote the princi- 
ple in which God was pleased to act, yet, 
(a) πάσῃ seems incompatible with such 
a reference; (0) the introduction of these 
attributes in reference to God disturbs 
the pervading reference to the Divine 
χάρις; (c) the analogy of Col. i. 9 
(urged by Olsh.) forcibly suggests the 
reference to man. (8) The connection 
(left undecided by Lachm., Tisch.) must, 
then, be that of the text. If the argu- 
ments, a, b, c, be not considered valid, ἐν 


πάσῃ κ. τ. A. must be joined with γνωρί- 
cas, as Theod. (μετὰ πολλῆς σοφίας 
ἐγνώρισεν) Griesb., al. The reference to 
God, combined with the ordinary pune- 
tuation (De Wette), is in the highest 
degree unsatisfactory. 

9. yvwpiaas| ‘having made known ;’ 
participle explanatory of the preceding 
ἐπερίσσευσεν --- ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ ppov., 
esp. of the latter words, and appy. de- 
noting an act coincident, and terminat- 
ing synchronously, with the finite verb ; 
see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 883, Don- 
alds. Gr. § 576, and esp. Herm. Viger, 
No 224, Stalbaum, Plato, Phedo, 62 ν. 
The ‘ut notum faceret’ of Vulg. (comp. 
Clarom., Goth.) is due to the reading 
γνωῤίσαι found in FG; 76; Hil., and 
some Latin Ff. τὸ μυστήριον 
k. τ. λ.] ‘the mystery of His will ;’ not 
‘Hebreo loquendi genere’ for consilium 
arcanum, Grot., but ‘the mystery pertain- 
ing to it,’ τοῦ δελήμ. being neither a gen. 
of apposition (τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον αὐτοῦ 
ϑέλημα καὶ ἄδηλον τοῖς πᾶσι μυστήριον 
αὐτὸ καλῶν, Theod.-Mops.), nor a gen. 
subjecti (‘as it has its origin in,’ Eadie), 
but simply a gen. objectz (‘concerning 
His will,’ Meyer), marking that to which 
the mystery was referred, and on which 
it turned ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 47. 7. 
1, Scheuerl. Synt., ὃ 17.1, p. 127. The 
incarnation of Christ and the redemption 
He wrought for us, though an actual rev- 
elation considered as a matter of fact, 
was a μυστήριον considered with refer- 
ence to the depths of the divine will: see 
above Theod.-Mops., and comp. Olsh. in 
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν] ‘ac- 
” specifica- 


loc. 
cording to His good pleasure ; 
tion of the γνωρίσας as having taken 
place in strict dependence both in time 
and manner on the will of God ; comp. 
ver. 56. To refer this to what follows 
(‘to wit, His intention according to his 
good pleasure to gather,’ Eadie) seems 


24 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 10. 


\ \ 1) / > a A Ὁ > Cente 10 > t 
KATA τὴν EVOOKLAY AUTOV, ἣν TTPOESETO EV αὐτῷ ELS OLKOVOMLLAV 


10. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς] Tisch. is‘ undoubtedly right in maintaining this reading with 
AFGK ; appy. majority of mss.; Copt.; Chrys., Theodoret (1) Theophyl. al. (Ree. 
Griesb., Scholz., Harless, De W.) against ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς with BDEL; about 40 
mss.; Goth.; Theodoret (1), Dam., Cc., al. (Lachm., Riick., Meyer, Alf,): tor, 
conceding that it may be grammatically correct (comp. exx. Rost u. Palm, Ler. 
ἐπί, 11. 1, Vol. 1. p. 1035), it must be said that the internal objections, — that ἐπὶ 
is never joined in the N. T. with οὐρανὸς or οὐρανοί, and that ἐν οὐρανῷ and ἐπὶ γῆς 
(probably not without significance) are invariably found in antithesis, — are deci- 


sive: see Harless in loc. 


obviously incorrect, involved, and out of 
harmony with ver. 5; as κατὰ κ. τ. A. 
formed a modal clause to mpoopicas there, 
80 it naturally qualifies γνωρίσας here. 
προέϑετο), ‘purposed;’ ‘proposuit,’ 
Vulg., not ‘preestituerat,’ Beza. The 
verb προτίϑεσϑαι only occurs in the N. 
T. in two other passages, viz., Rom. i. 
13 (ethical, as here), and Rom. iii. 25 
(quasi-local, ‘set forth’); the force of 
the prep. in both cases being /ocal rather 
than temporal (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
20), and analogous to the use of the 
prep. in προαιρεῖσϑαι (2 Cor. ix. 7) and 
προχειρίζεσϑαι (Acts iii. 20). It may 
indeed be doubted whether any instance 
can be found of προτίϑεσδϑαι in a purely 
temporal sense: Polyb. Hist. σαι. 13. 
1. is not in point. ἐν αὑτῷ] ‘in 
Himself; not αὐτῷ as Tisch, (ed. 2, 7). 
Though it is often difficult to decide be- 
tween the reflexive and non-reflexive 
pronoun (see Buttm. Mid. Excurs. x. p. 
140), yet as a general rule, where the 
attention is principally directed to the 
subject, the former is most natural ; 
where it is diverted by the importance of 
the details, the latter. 
vioYecia is so distinctly the important 
word that αὐτὸν is sufficiently explicit ; 
here, the connection with προέϑετο is so 
immediate that the reflexive form alone 
seems admissible. 

10. εἰς οἰκονομίαν, ‘for with a 
view to, the dispensation ;’ eis being not 
for ἐν (Vulg., Auth.), or temporal, ‘us- 


Thus, in ver. 5, 


que ad,’ Erasm. (a more justifiable trans- 
lation), but simply indicative of the pur- 
pose, intention, of the mpdSeots ; compare 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. a, p. 354. The 
meaning of οἰκονομία has been much de- 
bated. It occurs nine times in the N. 
T.; (a) in the simple sense of steward- 
ship Luke xvi. 2 sq.), ἃ meaning which 
Wieseler (Chron. p. 448) maintains even 
in this place; (b) in reference to the 
apostolic office, to the οἶκος Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. 
ix. 17, Col. i. 25, and (more remotely) 1 
Tim. i. 4; (c) in reference to the Divine 
government of the world, disposition, dis- 
pensation, — here, and ch. ili. 2, 9; see 
exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. 11. 
Ρ. 417, and esp. Schweigh. Lez. Polyb. 
s.v. The special meanings ‘ dispensatio 
gratie,’ ‘redemptionis mysterium,” 861], 
Christi ἀνανϑρώπησις (Suicer, Thesaur. 
8. v.; comp. Valesius, Euseb. Hist. 1. 1, 
Petay. de Incarn. 11.1, Vol. tv. p. 110), 
which was probably deduced from the 
whole clause, cannot be admitted as ex- 
planations of the simple word. The 
article is not required, as the governing 
substantive is sufficiently defined by the 
gen. which follows; see Winer, Gr. § 
19. 2. b, p. 113 sq. 
ματος τῶν καιρῶν] ‘of the fulness 
of the seasons ;’ scil that moment which 
completes, and, as it were, fills up the 
ordained καιροὶ (time estimated in refer- 
ence to the epochs in the Divine govern- 
ment), of the Gospel dispensation : com- 
pare the somewhat similar expression, 


τοῦ πληρώ- 


Cnavp. I. 10. 


EPHESIANS. 


25 


a ΄ al [ον ’ , \ 4 τὰ 
τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαι τὰ πάντα ἐν 


πλήρωσις ἡμερῶν (Dan. x. 3, Ezek. v. 3), 
where, however, the completion is esti- 
mated relatively to the act, rather than to 
the exact moment that made the remaining 
temporal void full; see notes on Gul. iv. 
4. ‘The genitival relation of these words 
to οἰκονομία is very obscure. It would 
certainly seem that πληρώματος Κ. τ. A. 
cannot be (a) a gen. of the object (The- 
od.-Mops.), for, as Meyer justly observes, 
the πλήρωμα may be said ἐλϑεῖν (Gal. Us 
c.), but not οἰκονομεῖσϑαι : nor again () 
can it be an explanatory gen. or gen. of 
identity (Harless ; comp. Scheuerl. Synt. 
§ 12.1, p. 82), for an essentially tempo- 
ral conception can scarcely be used in 
explanation of an ethical notion. It 
may, however, be plausibly considered 
as (c) a gen. of the characterizing quality 
(Scheuerl. § 16.3, p. 115), which, espe- 
cially in local and temporal reference, 
admits considerable latitude of applica- 
tion ; comp. Jude 6, κρίσις μεγάλης ἡμέ- 
pas, and sce exx. in Winer, ‘Gr. ὃ 30. 2, 
p- 168 sq.; and in Hartung, Casus, p. 27. 
The difficult expression οἶκον. τοῦ πληρ. 
x. τ. A. will thus seem to imply not 
merely the ‘full-timed dispensation,’ 
(Eadie), but more exactly, ‘the dispen- 
sation that was characterized by, that was 
to be set forth in, the fulness of time’ 
(‘propria plenitudini temp.’ Caloy.), and 
must be referred not only to the period 
of the coming of Christ (ed. 1, Ust. 
Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 83; comp. Chrys. πλή- 
ρωμα τῶν καιρῶν ἣ παρουσία αὐτοῦ ἦν), 
but, appy., as the more extended ref. of 
the context seems to suggest, the whole 
duration of the Gospel dispensation 
(Alf.) ; Stier in loc. (p. 96), and contrast 
Gal. iv. 4, where, as the context shows, 
the reference is more restricted. The 
use and meaning of the term is noticed 
by Hall, Bampt. Lect. for 1797. 

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαιἶ, ‘to sum up 
again together,’ ‘restaurare,’ Clarom., 


4 


‘summatim recolligere,’ Beza; not de- 
pendent on προέϑετο, but explanatory 
infinitive, defining the nature and pur- 
pose of the πρόϑεσις ; comp, 1 Thess. 
iv. 4, and see notes on Col. i. 22. The 
article is not necessary, see Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 2. obs. p. 286, notes on 1 Thess. 
iii. 8, and comp. Madvig, Syntax § 144. 
The meaning of this word, connected as 
it here is with the counsels of Omnipo- 
tence, must be investigated with the 
most anxious care. Viewed simply, 
κεφαλαιῶσαι (συντομῶς συναγαγεῖν, He- 
sych. means ‘summatim colligere,’ Thu- 
cyd. 111. 67, vi. 91, VIII. 53; avakepa- 
λαιώσασϑαι ‘summatim (sibi) recolligere ;" 
comp. συγκεφαλαιοῦσϑαι (‘in brevem 
summam contrahere’), Polyb. Hist. 111- 
3. 1, 1. 66. 11, ete.; see Schweigh. Lez. 
Polyb., and Raphel in loc. Viewed in 
connection with the context, two impor- 
tant questions arise. (1) Is there any al- 
lusion to Christ as the κεφαλή (Chrys.) 3 
In a writer so profound as St. Paul this 
is far from impossible. The derivation 
of the word, however (κεφάλαιον not 
κεφαλή), --- St. Paul’s use of it in its 
common meaning, Rom. xiii. 9, — and 
most of all the context, which points to 
a union ‘in Christo,’ not ‘sub Christo’ 
(Beng.), to His atonement rather than 
His sovereignty (Col. ii. 10), render it 
improbable. (2) What is the force of 
ava? From Rom. ἰ. c. (see Fritz.) it 
has plausibly been considered latent ; 
still, as even there this is very doubtful 
(see Meyer in loc.), it must not here be 
lightly passed over. What, then, is this 
force? Obviously not simple repetition ; 
nor again (from reasons above) summa- 
tion upwards, in reference to Christ as 
the Head (σύνδεσμον ἄνωδεν ἐπικειμένον, 
Chrys.), but re-union, re-collection, a * par- 
tium divulsarum conjunctio’ in reference 
to a state of previous and primal unity ; 
so far, then, but so far ouly, a ‘restora- 


to 


26 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 11. 


fal A \ ᾽ A > A \ \ > \ lol an > > na 
τῷ Χριστῷ, Ta ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐν αὐτῷ, " ἐν 


tion’ (Syr., Vulg.) to that state ; comp. 
Beng. in loc. University Sermons, p. 162, 
and see an excellent discussion on the 
word in Andrewes, Serm. xvi. Vol. 1. p. 
265, 270 (A. C. Libr.). The force of 
the middle voice must also, appy., not 
be overlooked. 
imply ‘all intelligent beings’ (compare 
notes on Gal. iii. 22), but, on account of 
the clauses which follow, is best taken in 
its widest sense, ‘all things and beings,’ 
Meyer; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. 
p- 269. 
κι τ᾿ A.] ‘the things in heaven and the 
things upon earth ;’ widest expression of 
universality designed to show the extent 
of the preceding τὰ πάντα (Andr.) ; 
comp. Col. i. 20, and see notes in loc. 
Without entering into the profound 
questions which haye been connected 
with these words, it may be said, — that 
as on the one hand all limiting inter- 
pretations —e. g. Jews and Gentiles 
(Schoettg.), ἀγγέλους 
(Chrys.), the world of spirits and the 
race of men (Meier), — are opposed to 
the generalizing neuter (Winer, Gr. § 
27. 5, p. 160), and the comprehensive- 
ness of the expressions ; so, on the other 
hand, any reference to the redemption 
or restoration of those spirits (Crellius), 
for whom our Lord Himself said τὸ πῦρ 
τὸ αἰώνιον (Matth. xxv. 4) was prepared, 
must be pronounced fundamentally im- 
possible : comp. Bramhall, Custigations, 
ete., Disc. 11. Vol. rv. p. 354 (Angl. 
Cath. Lib.), Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. 
p- 192 and University Sermons p. 91 sq. 
The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρ. (Lachm. Alf.), 
though fairly supported [BDEL], is 
scarcely probable ; see crit note. 

ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not added merely 
‘explicationis causi (Herm. Viger. 123 
b. 5), but as re-asseverating with great 
solemnity and emphasis (see Jelf, Gr. § 
658), the only blessed sphere zn which 


τὰ πάντα May 


τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 


καὶ avdpwrous, 


this ἀνακεφαλαίωσις can be regarded as 
operative, and apart from which and 
without which, its energies cannot be 
conceived as acting; see Univ. Serm. p. 
89, 90. It forms also an easy transition 
to the following relative. 

11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώϑ.] ‘in whom 
we were also chosen as His inheritance ;’ 
kal obviously qualifying ékAnp., not the 
unexpressed pronoun (Auth.), and speci- 
fying the gracious carrying out and 
realization of the divine πρόϑεσις, v. 9. 
This ascensive foree may sometimes be 
expressed by ‘really,’ see Hartung, Par- 
tik. καὶ, 2.7, p. 132 sq.; the exact shade 
of meaning, however, will be best de- 
fined by a consideration of the exact 
tenor and tacit comparisons of the con- 
text; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. 
The exact meaning of ἐκληρώδ. is very 


doubtful. Passing over the more ob- 
viously untenable interpretations of 


Bretsch., Wahl, Koppe, and others, we 
find four translations which deserve at- 
tention: (a) Pass. for middle; ‘we have 
obtained an inheritance,’ Auth., Conyb.; 
comp. Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 204: this, 
however, is not fairly substantiated by 
the citations adduced, and is distinetly 
at variance with the significant passives 
which preyail throughout this profound 
paragraph in reference to man. Even 
προσεκληρώϑησαν, Acts xvii. 4, is best 
taken passively; see Winer, Gr. § 39. 
2, p. 234. (b) Simple pass. ; ‘sorte 
vocati sumus,’ Vulg., Syr., Goth. (1 Sam. 
xiv. 41, see exx. in Elsner, /. ¢.), 2. 6. Sas 
though by lot,’ in allusion to the sove- 
reign freedom of God’s choice; κλήρου 
γενομένου ἡμᾶς ἐξελέξατο, Chrys.: this, 
however, is seriously at variance with 
St. Paul’s modes of thought and the 
regular forms of expression (καλεῖν, ἐκ- 
λέγεσϑαι) which he uses on this subject : 
see Harless and Meyer in loc. (6) Pas- 
sive, used like πιστεύομαι, μαρτυροῦμαι 


Cuap. I. 19. 


EPHESIANS. 


27 


? \ > δι by Qt \ ay a Ν , 
ῳ Kab εκ po μεν Tr POOplo SEVTES KaTa “ρο €OlY του τὰ TaVTa 


᾽ rn 


\ \ \ rn / > an 
ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ δελήματος αὐτοῦ 
? 


(comp. ἀποροῦμαι, Gal. iv. 20, and see 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 39. 1, p. 233), with an im- 
plied accus., scil. ‘in hereditatem adsciti 
sumus,’ Grot. 2, Harl., Meyer (‘ were en- 
feoffed,’ Eadie), — with allusion to Josh. 
xiv. 1 sq. and reference to the κλῆρος 
τῶν ἁγίων, Col. i. 12. (d) Pass., in 
a special sense; ‘eramus facti hereditas 
(Dominz),’ Beng., Hamm. [mis-cited by 
De W.], ἢ. e. λαὸς ἔγκληρος, Deut. iv. 
20; see ch. ix. 29, xxxii. 6. Between 
(c) and (d) it is somewhat hard to de- 
cide. While both present some difficul- 
ties, (6) in point of structure, (d) in the 
special character of its meaning, both 
harmonize well with the context, the 
former in its allusion to κληρονομία, ver. 
14, the latter with reference to περιποίη- 
ots, ver. ib. As however (6) is doubtful 
in point of usage, and as the force of 
kal is well maintained by (d) in the gen- 
tle contrast it suggests between the gen- 
eral ἐκλογὴ and the more specially gra- 
cious KAnpwols, this latter interpretation 
is certainly to be preferred; ‘we were 
not only chosen out, but chosen out as a 
λαὸς ἔγκληρος ;᾿ εἶπεν, ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς, 
ἀνωτέρω: ἐνταῦδά φησιν, ἐκληρώϑημεν, 
Chrys. The reading ἐκλήϑημεν 
though found in ADEFG; Clarom., 
Sang., Boern, al. (Lachm.) seems almost 
certainly a sort of gloss for the more 
difficult and appy. ill-understood ἐκληρώ- 
βουλὴν τοῦ ϑελήμα- 
tos] ‘the counsel of His will, <consilium 
yoluntatis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; assertion of 
the unconditioned and sovereign will of 
God appropriately introduced after ἐκλη- 
ρώϑημεν; ὥστε οὐκ ἐπειδή ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ov 
προσεῖχον, διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἔϑνη ἐκαλεσεν, 
The expres- 
sion βουλὴ ϑελήματος is not either ple- 
onastic, or expressive of ‘ consilium 
liberrimum’ (Beng.), but solemnly rep- 
resents the Almighty Will as displaying 


Onmev. 


οὐδὲ ἀναγκασδϑείς, Chrys. 


19 ᾽ Ν “ 
εἰς TO ELVAL 


itself in action ; ϑέλημα designating the 
will generally, βουλὴ the more special 
expression of it. The distinction of 
Buttmann (ZLevzil. s. v. ὃ 35, compare 
Tittm. Synon. p. 124 sq.), that ‘BovAoua 
is confined to the inclination, éSéAw to 
that kind of wish in which there lies a 
purpose or design, does not seem gen- 
erally applicable to the N. T. (see Matt. 
i. 19, and comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5 with Eph. 
ii. 3), and probably not always to classi- 
cal Greek; see Pape, Lex. s. v. βούλομαι, 
Vol. 1. p. 883, Donalds. Crat. § 463. 
For further illustrations see notes on 1 
Tim. v. 14. 

12. εἰς τὸ εἶναι x. τ. λ.] ‘that we 
should be to the praise of His glory ;’ final 
cause of the κλήρωσις on the part of God 
mentioned in the preceding verse, εἰς τὸ 
κι τ. A. depending on exAnp., and τοῦς 
προηλπικ. forming an opposition to ἡμᾶς. 
To refer this clause to προορισϑέντες, 
and to connect εἶναι with προηλπικότας 
(Harl.) is highly involved and artificial ; 
see Meyer zn loc. The reference of 
the pronoun is somewhat doubtful. Up 
to the present verse, ἡμεῖς has designated 
the community of believers, Jews and 
Gentiles. It would seem most natural 
to continue it in the same sense; the 
meaning, however, assigned to e«Anp., 
that of mponAm., and most of all the op- 
position καὶ ὑμεῖς (which De Wette does 
not invalidate by ref. to ch. ii. 1, Col. i. 
8), seem convincingly to prove that ἡμεῖς 
refers especially to Jewish Christians, 
ὑμεῖς to Gentile Christians. Chrys. has 
not expressed this, but the citation above 
(on ékAnp.) would seem to imply dis- 
tinctly that he felt it. It may be 
observed that the insertion of the art. 
τῆς before δόξης, with A; many mss. ; 
Chrys., al. (Ree.), is opposed to the bulk 
of Mss. and rejected by all recent edi- 
tors. τοὺς προηλπικ,) ‘we, Lf 


28 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuapsi,A3. 


€ a > » , 5 lal \ δ᾿ >’ a “ 
ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ, τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ: 


132 τ NG ne a 5) , , λό n x; % / SUS aN 
ἐν ᾧ Kal ὑμεῖς, ἀκούσαντες TOV λογον τῆς ahynAELAS, TO εὐαγγεὰλ- 


say, who have before hoped :᾿ Pai faura 
venjandans [hi ante sperantes], Goth. ; 
the article with the part. standing in dis- 
tinct and emphatic apposition to ἡμᾶς, 
and defining more fully their spiritual 
attitude; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1. ¢, p. 
121, but observe that the transl. ‘ quippe 
qui speravimus’ (ed. 1, Winer, Meyer, 
al.) is inexact, as this would imply a 
part. without, not as here with the article ; 
on these distinctions of predication, see 
esp. Donalds. Crat. ὃ 304 sq, Gr. § 492 
sq- The prep. πρὸ has received many 
different explanations, several of which, 
6. g. πρὶν ἢ ἐπιστῇ ὁ μέλλων αἰών, The- 
oph., ‘qui priores speravimus,’ Beza, 
‘already, prior to the time of writing,’ 
Eadie — appear to have resulted rather 
from preconceived opinions of the refer- 
ence of ἡμεῖς, than from a simple invyes- 
tigation of the word. As mpoopiCw, ver. 
5, implies an ὁρισμὸς before the object of 
it appeared, so προελπίζω seems to imply 
an exercise of ἐλπὶς before the object of 
it, i.e. Christ, appeared. The perf part., 
as usual, indicates that the action which 
is described as past still continues, see 
exx. Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. a, p. 244. 
ἐν Χριστῷ denotes the object in whom 
the hope was placed; compare 1 Cor. 
xv. 9, and see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 
10, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. 
p. 222. The preceding reference of the 
fore-hope in the Messiah to the Jews 
(comp. Acts xxviii. 20) is in no way in- 
compatible with the use of ἐν Χριστῷ 
rather than of εἰς Χριστόν (Holzh., Ea- 
die): to have hoped in Christ was a 
higher characteristic than to have di- 
rected hope towards Christ, and desig- 
nated them as more worthy exponents 
of the praise of God’s glory; compare 
Stier in loc. p. 112, 114. 

13. év 6 kal bets x. 7. A] The 
construction of this verse is somewhat 


doubtful. <A finite verb is commonly 
supposed, either from ἐκληρώϑημεν, ver. 
11, or προηλπικότας. If from the former 
(Harless), it would now limit ἐκληρ. to 
the Gentile Christians, which formerly 
referred to both them and Jewish Chris- 
tians: the regression, too, would seem 
unduly great. If from the latter, mp o- 
nAtikate (not ἠλπίκατε, Beza) must be 
supplied, which would imply what was 
contrary to the fact. Others (Meyer, 
Alf., al.) supply the verb subst, 
whom ye are,’ but thus introduce a 
statement singularly frigid and out of 
harmony with the linked and ever-rising 
character of the context. It can scarcely 
then be doubted that we have here a 
form of the ‘oratio suspensa’ (Beng.), 
according to which the second ἐν @ does 
not refer to a fresh subject (Mey.), but is 
simply resumptive of the first. The full 
force and meaning of this anacoluthon 
have scarcely been sufficiently expanded. 
Kal ὑμεῖς [ἡμεῖς, A K L; mss., but with 
no probability] directs the attention to 
the contrast between the pronouns; ἀκού- 
σαντες k. T.A. Suggests a further reference 
to those who had hoped on less conyine- 
ing evidence. This might have been 
followed at once by the finite verb éo- 
pay. kK. τ. A.: but was so important ἃ 
clause to follow at once on ἀκούσαντες * 
Surely ἀκοὴ must be expanded into 
something more vital before it could be 
so blessed. Kal mov. is thus interca- 
lated with all the ascensive force of καὶ 


‘in 


(οὐ yap μόνον ἠκούσατε ἀλλὰ Kal ἐπιστεύ- 
care, Theod.), and thus, far from be- 
coming superfluous (Meyer), is truly a 
necessary and vital member of the sen- 
tence. So appy. Syr., Copt., Goth., 
ZEth., which though suppressing the καί, 
and converting the participles into finite 
verbs retain substantially the correct 
structure. Ἔν @ may be joined with 


Cuap. I. 18 


EPHESIANS. 29 


"- 


an / e A ΗΝ \ a 
Lov τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσϑϑητε TO 


πιστεύσαντες (Mark i. 15) as well as ἐσ- 
φραγ. (Scholef.), but as πιστεύειν ἔν τινι 
is not used by St. Paul, and as ἐν ᾧ in 
ver. 11 is not joined with the participle 
but the finite verb, it seems best, in this 
somewhat parallel verse, to preserve the 
same construction ; see Riick, and Harl. 
in loc. τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀλη- 
ὃ εία 5] ‘the word of the truth;’ not the 
gen. of apposition (Harless), but the gen. 
substantia ; sce Scheuerl. Synt. 12. 1, p. 
82, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The truth 
did not only form the subject (Meyer), 
but was its very substance and essence. 
The remark of Chrys. is thus perfectly 
in point, — τῆς ἀληϑείας, οὐκέτι τὸν τοῦ 
τύπου, οὐδὲ τὺν τῆς εἰκόνος ; 506 NOtes on 
δ]: π| a: 
awtnp.| ‘the Gospel of your salvation ;’ 
not a gen. of apposition, nor exactly, as 
above, a gen. of the substance, but rather 
a gen. of the (spiritual) contents or sub- 
ject-matter (Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 
161, Scheuerl, Synt. § 17, 1, p. 126), 
scil. ‘the Gospel (τὸ κήρυγμα, Chrys.) 
which turns upon, which reveals salva- 
tion;’ thus forming one of that large 
class of genitives of remoter reference 
(see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2. B, p. 
169 sq.), and belonging appy. to the 
general category of the genitive of rela- 
tion; see Donalds. Gr. § 453, p. 475 sq. 
For a list of the various substantives 
with which εὐαγγέλιον is associated (Θεοῦ͵ 
Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, al., Χριστοῦ, Rom. xv. 
19, Gal. i. 7, al, τῆς χάριτος, Acts xx. 
24, τῆς εἰρήνης, Eph. vi. 19), see esp. 
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 11. p. 
81. πιστεύσαντες is not pres- 
ent (Eadie), and contemporaneous with 
ἐσφραγ. (Larl.), but antecedent; comp. 
Acts xix. 2, and see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 
2, p. 267; the ordinary sequence, as 
Meyer observes, is (a) Hearing; (ὁ) 
Faith, which of course implies prevent- 
ing grace; (c) Baptism ; (d) Communi- 


τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Tis 


cation of the Holy Spirit; compare to- 
gether, esp. Acts ii. 37 (a, c, d) ; viii. 6, 
ΤΣ (αὐ; end) ine xia O(c.) Acts 
x. 44 (d,c) and perhaps ix. 17 are excep- 
tional cases. On the divine order or 
method mercifully used by God in our 
salvation, see the brief but weighty re- 
marks of Hammond, Pract. Catech. 1. 4, 
p. 83 (A. C. Libr.). ἐσφραγίσ- 
Snte| ‘were sealed;’ τὴν βεβαίωσιν 
ἐδέξασϑε, Theodor.-Mops.: see Suicer, 
Thesaurus, s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1197. The 
seal of the Spirit is that blessed hope 
and assurance which the Holy Spirit 
imparts to our spirit, ὅτε ἐσμὲν τέκνα 
Θεοῦ, Rom. viii. 16: see esp. Bull, Disc. 
111. p. 897 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844). 
Any purely objective meaning in refer- 
ence to heathen (Grot.), or even to Jew- 
ish customs (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 11. p. 
508, compare Chrys.), seems here very 
doubtful : ἡ σφραγὶς is undoubtedly used 
by ecclesiastical writers simply for Bap- 
tism (Grabe, Spicil. Vol. 1. p. 331 56.» 
comp. Rom. iy. 11), but any special ref- 
erence of this nature would not appear 
in harmony with the present context. 

τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελία:] 


‘the Spirit of promise,’ eo Lowes 
Om 9x A 


[qui promissus erat], Syr., ‘quem promi- 
sit, ith. The genitival relation has 
here again received different explana- 
tions. The simple meaning derived 
from the most general use of the gen., 
as the case of ablation (Donalds. Gr. § 
451), the ‘whence-case’ (Hartung, Casus, 
p- 12) requires but little modification. 
Td Πν. τῆς ἐπ. is ‘ the Spirit which came 
from, 7. 6. was announced by, promise ;’” 
ὅτι κατὰ ἐπαγγ. αὐτὸ ἐλάβομεν, Chrys., 
or as Theoph. 1, still more literally, ὅτε 
ἐξ ἐπαγγ. ἐδόϑη : so in effect Syr. The 
active sense, ὅτε βεβαιοῖ τὴν ἐπαγγελ. 
(Theoph. 2), is grammatically doubtfal 
(as there is no such verbal basis in 


80 


EPHESIANS. 


Guar. 1. 14. 


, a 5) , AL ΕΣ τὴ we 5 »γε \ a 
Πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, "Os ἐστιν ἀῤῥαβὼν τῆς κλη- 


“- Ἃ an n 
ρονομίας ἡμῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως, εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς 


δόξης αὐτοῦ. 


Πνεῦμα; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 
1, p. 126), and is exegetically unneces- 
sary, as the idea of BeBatwors lies in ἐσ- 
φραγίσϑητε. See Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 
11. p. 1767, and comp. notes on Gal. iii. 
14. τῳ ἁγίῳ marks, with solemn 
emphasis, Him by whom they were 
sealed — Him whose essence was _holi- 
ness — the personal Holy Spirit of God. 
For a weighty and practical sermon on 
this verse, see Usher, Serm. x11. Vol. 
x11. p. 175 (ed. Elringt.), and for three 
discourses of a more general character 
Barrow, Serm. x111. x1v. xv. Vol. 1. p. 
1—59 (Oxf. 1830). 

14. ὅ 9] As the noun in the explanatory 
clause (6s — ἐστί) gains a prominence 
by being not only an elucidation or am- 
plification (chap. i. 23), but a definition 
and specification of that in the antece- 
dent, the relative agrees with it in gen- 
der: see esp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 8, p. 192, 
Madvig, Synt. ὃ 98. b. “Os need not 
therefore be referred to Christ (Poly- 
earp. Phil. § 8), nor indeed to the per- 
sonal nature of the Holy Spirit (John 
xiv. 26), as τὸ Πν. in its most distinct 
personal sense is invariably used with 
the neuter relative; compare the collec- 
tion of exx. in Bruder, Concord. s. v. ὅς, 
11. p. 619. The reading 6, adopted by 
Lachm. with ABFGL; 15 mss.; Athan. 
(2), al., seems clearly a grammatical 
gloss, and is rejected by most recent ed- 
itors. ἀ ῥῥα βὼ ν] ‘earnest, Auth, 
Arm.; a word used in the N. T. only 
here and 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, comp. 74273 
Gen xxviii. 17 sq. ‘arrhabo,’ Plaut. AZost. 
11. 1. 3, Rud. Prol. 45. It is a term 
probably of Phoenician origin (Gesen. 
Lex. s. y.) and denotes (1) a portion of 
the purchase money, an earnest of future 
payment, πρόδομα, Hesych., ἡ ἐπὶ ταῖς 
ὠναῖς παρὰ τῶν ὠνουμένων διδομένη προ- 


καταβολή, tym. M.; (2) pignus, Cla- 
rom., Vulg., ‘vadi,’ Goth.; see esp. 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 239. The word 
has here its primary meaning: the gifts 
and υἱοϑεσία, of which the Spirit assures 
us now, are the earnest, the ἀπαρχὴ (Ba- 
sil) of the κληρονομία (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ 
Xp. καὶ Θεοῦ, ch. v. 5) hereafter: see 
Rom. viii. 23, and comp. Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 248. Christ, 
somewhat similarly, is termed the agp. 
τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἡμῶν, Constit. Apost. ν. 
6: Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p 512. 
eis ἀπολύτρωσιν x. τ. A.| ‘for the 
redemption of the purchased possession,’ 


le» dal? LisseaS [eorum 


qui vivunt, se. servantur] Syr, ‘in re- 
demptionem adquisitionis’ Vulg.; first 
of the two final clauses, expressive of 
the divine purpose inyolved in the ἐσ- 
φραγίσϑητε x. τ. A.3 see below (2). 
The explanations of these difficult 
clauses are very varied. Passing over 
those founded on questionable construc- 
tions, whether by participial solution 
(Koppe, Wahl), apposition (ἀπολύτρ. 
scil. περιπ., comp. Chrys., Theophl. 1,), 
conjunction (ἄπολ. καὶ mepim., compare 
Holzh.), or virtual interchange {(περιπ. 
τῆς amoA. Beza, Steph. Thesaur. s. v. 
mepim.), we will notice (1) the probable 
meaning of the words, (2) the probable 
connection of the clause with the sen- 
tence. (1) ἀπολύτρωσις, a 
word always (6. g. ch. iv. 30, Rom. viii. 
23), and here especially, modified by 
the context, appears to denote the final 
and complete redemption (ἢ καϑαρὰ 
amo. Chrys.) from sufferings and sins, 
from Satan and from death ; see Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 106, Neand. Planting, 
Vol. τ. p. 456, and comp. Reuss, Theol. 
Chrét. 1v. 17, Vol. 11. p. 183 sq. who, 


Cuap. I. 15. 


I ever give thanks and 
pray that ye may be en- 


EPHESIANS. 


31 


fa , 5 te ’ r 
15 Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώ, ἀκούσας τὴν καὶ ὑμᾶς 


lightened to know the hope of His calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the greatness of His power, 
which was especially displayed in the resurrection and supreme exaltation of Christ. 


however, is appy. unduly restrictive. 
περιποίησις is much more obscure ; 
while its etymological form and syntac- 
tic use (comp. 1 Thess. ν. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 
14, Heb. x. 39) suggest an active and 
abstract interpretation (Beng.), the gen- 
itival relation with ἀπολύτρ. renders this 
in the present case wholly untenable. 
The same may be said of the concrete 
passive explanation ‘hzreditas acquis- 
ita’ (Caloy.) even if that explanation be 
lexically demonstrable. The most an- 
cient interpretation (Syr.), according to 
which 4 περιπ. = of περιποιηϑέντες, scil. 
λαὸς εἰς περίπ. 1 Pet. ii. 9 (comp. Isaiah 
xliii. 21, and esp. Mal. iii. 7), and is a 
Christian application of the τῆλ 7230, 
the λαὸς περιούσιος LXX, of the Old 
Testament, is on the whole most satis- 
factory. The objection that περιπ. is 
never absolutely so used is of weight, and 
is not to be diluted by a forced reference 
to αὐτοῦ (Mey.); still, while the exx. 
adduced show such a meaning to be pos- 
sible, the context, and esp. the genitival 
relation, render it in a high degree prob- 
able. The discussions of the other in- 
terpretations by Harless and the com- 
ments of Stier (p. 129) on ἀπολύτρ. will 
repay perusal. (2) Connection: εἰς may 
be joined with ὅς ἐστιν κ. τ. A. (Tisch, 
Riick.) in a temporal sense, ‘until,’ 
Auth. Ver., but much more probably 
belongs to ἐσφραγίσϑητε. Eis ἀπολ. is 
thus a clause coordinate with εἰς ἔπαινον 
k. τ. A., the former expressing the final 
clause in reference to man, the latter in 
more especial and ultimate reference to 
God. 

15. διὰ τοῦτο Kaya] ‘On this ac- 
count I also ;’ ref. to the preceding verses 
as a reason for thanks to God for the 
spiritual state of the Ephesians, with a 
prayer (ver. 17) for their further enlight- 
enment. The exact reference of these 


words is doubtful. Harless (after Chrys.) 
refers διὰ τοῦτο to the whole paragraph ; 
as, however, the Ephesians are first spe- 
cially addressed in ver. 13 (καὶ ὑμεῖς), it 
seems best, with Theophyl., to connect 
διὰ τοῦτο only with ver. 13, 14; ‘on ac- 
count of thus having heard, believed, 
and having been sealed in Christ.” Κἀγὼ 
(‘I also, I too,’ not “1 indeed,’ Eadie) is 
thus faintly corresponsive with καὶ ὑμεῖς, 
and hints at the union in prayer and 
praise which subsisted between the 
Apostle and his converts. De Wette 
refers καὶ to διὰ τοῦτο, adducing Col. i. 
9, but this example (comp. verse 4 with 
yerse 9) certainly confirms the strict 
union of particle and pronoun; see 
notes 7m loc. Eadie and Bretschneider 
cite Rom. iii. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 8, xi. 1, Gal. 
iv. 12, 1 Thess. iii. 5, al., but in all these 
instances καὶ has its full and proper 
comparative force: see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 635. &kovaas| ‘having 
heard? All historical arguments (ὡς 
μηδέπω Seacduevos αὐτούς, --- noticed, but 
rejected by Theodoret) derived, on the 
one hand, from pressing the meaning of 
the verb (D. W.) or, on the other, the 
improbable (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. b. 
1, comp. on Gal. vy. 24) frequentative 
force of the tense (Eadie), must be pro- 
nounced extremely precarious. St. Paul 
certainly uses ἀκούσας, Col. i. 4, in refer- 
ence to converts he had not seen; but 
this alone would not have proved it, and 
thus does not prevent our here referring 
ἀκούσας to the progress the Ephesians 
had made in the four or five years since 
he had last seen them; see Wieseler, 
Chronol., p. 445, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 
1841, p. 431 sq. τὴν Kad ὑμῶς 
πίστιν is commonly regarded as a 
mere periphrasis for τὴν ὑμετέραν m-, or 
rather τὴν π. ὑμῶν, the possessive ὑμέτε- 
pos (comp. ἡμέτ.) being used sparingly 


32 EPHESIANS. Cuap. I. 16. 


7 / ’ a K t eli la) \ \ ’ is \ > ΄ a3 

ίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς 
, ‘4 lal lal ‘ lal 

ἁγίους, ™ ov παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιού- 


10. μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμενος] So Tisch. with ΟΡ ΕΚΤ, (FG; Boern. transpose ὑμῶν 
and ποιούμ.) great majority of mss.; Sangerm., Aug., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., 
al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., De W. (e sil.), Wordsw.). The 
omission of ὑμῶν is well supported by external evidence, viz. ABD! (not C, Eadie ; 
this is one of its lacunz); about 10 mss.; Clarom., Goth.; Hil. (Rick. Lachm., 
Mey., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 144 1), but is perhaps slightly less probable ; 
esp. as an omission of ὑμῶν owing to the preceding ὑμῶν is more likely than an 
explanatory insertion, where the meaning is so obvious, and as 1 Thess. i, 2 (where 


AB similarly omit ὑμῶν) is appy. an instructive parallel. 


(only 4 times) in St. Paul’s Epp. It 
must be admitted that later writers ap- 
pear to use κατὰ with acc. as equivalent 
to possess. pronoun or gen. (see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 241, Winer, Gr. 
§ 22. 7, obs. Ρ. 178), still, as St. Paul 
uses 7 πίστ. ὑμῶν at least 17 times, and 
ἡ Kad bu. π. Only once, there would seem 
to be a distinction; the latter (κατὰ dis- 
tributive) probably denoting the faith of 
the community viewed objectively, ‘the 
faith which is among you,’ the former the 
subjective faith of individuals : see Har- 
less and Stier in loc., and comp. John 
Vili. 17, τῷ νόμῳ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ (addressed 
to Pharisees), with Acts xviil. 15, νομοῦ 
τοῦ Kad ὑμᾶς (in reference to Jews in 
Achaia), which seem to convey a par- 
allel distinction, and at any rate to in- 
vert the supposition of Eadie, that ἡ kav’ 
ju. m. denotes more distinctive, charac- 
teristic possession than the former, 

ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ) ‘in the Lord;’ defini- 
tion of the holy sphere and object of the 
πίστις; the omission of the article giv- 
ing a more complete unity to the con- 
ception, as it were, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’ 
‘ fidem erga Deum in Domino Jesu,’ Beng. ; 
see notes on Gal. iii. 26. It is instructive 
to compare with this the subsequent 
clause, τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν k. τ. Δ.» where 
the second article [Lachm. omits with 
AB; 17 al.] seems inserted to convey 
two momenta of thought, love generally, 
further defined by that amplitude (οὐ 


τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους, φησί, μόνον, Chrys.) 
which is its true Christian characteris- 
tic; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 
195. As a general rule, it may be ob- 
served, that when the defining preposi- 
tional clause is so incorporated with (e. 
g. ch. ii. 11), — appended to (Col. iv. 8), 
—or, as here, structurally assimilated 
πίστις (πιστεύω) ἐν, compare ch. 11]. 13, 
Rom. vi. 4) with the subst. it defines as 
to form only a single conception, the ar- 
ticle is correctly omitted ; see Harless in 
loc., and Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 128. 

eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίου 5] ‘towards 
all the ϑαϊπιδ; objects towards whom 
the love was directed ; omnes character 
Christianismi,’ Bengel: compare ch. vi. 
18, Philem. 5. On the meaning of ayi- 
ous, see notes on ch. i. 1. 

16. οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν) 
‘I cease not giving thanks.’ In this sim- 
ple and well-known formula the partici- 
ple points to a state supposed to be al- 
ready in existence ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 
4, p. 308 sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 45. 5, p. 
481. In many verbs 6. g. αἰσχύνομαι, 
Luke xvi. 8) this distinction between 
part. and inf. may be made palpable ; in 
others, as in the present case, the verb 
is such as rarely to admit any other idio- 
matic structure; see Herm. Viger, No. 
218, Donalds. Gr. § 591, and for a good 
paper on the general distinction between 
the uses of the participle and of the 
infin., Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. 


4 


Cuap. J. 17. 
μενος ἐπὶ TOV προσευχῶν μου, 


μνείαν motovm.| ‘making 
mention of you;’ limitation, or rather 
specification of the further direction of 
the εὐχαριστία : comp. 1 Thess. 1. 2, Phi- 
lem. 4, and see notes zn loce. ἐπὶ 
τῶν προσευχ. μου] ‘in my prayers,’ 
‘in orationibus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth. ; 
ἐπὶ here being not simply and crudely 
temporal, ‘at the time of my prayers’ 
(adie), but retaining also that shade of 
local reference of which even the more 
distinctly temporal examples are not 
wholly divested: see Bernhardy, Synt. 
v. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 
2. The prep. thus serves to express the 
concurrent circumstances and relations 
in which, and under which an event took 
place; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47, g, p. 336. 
17. ἵνα 6 Θεὸς κ. τ. λ.] ‘that God 
εἰς. ; ᾿ subject of the prayer blended with 
the purpose of making it. The exact 
meaning of this particle both here and in 
similar passages requires a brief notice. 
The uses of ἵνα in the N. T. appear to 
be three, — (1) Final, or indicative of 
the end, purpose, or object of the action, 
—the primary and principal meaning, 
and never to be given up except on the 
most distinct counter-arguments. (2) 
Sub-final, — occasionally, especially after 
verbs of entreaty (not of command), the 
subject of the prayer being blended with, 
and even in some cases obscuring the 
purpose of making it; see esp. Winer, 
Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299, and notes on Phil. i. 
9. (3) Eventual, or indicative of result, 
—appy. in a few cases, and due, per- 
haps, more to what is called ‘Hebrew 
teleology’ (1. 6. the reverential aspect 
under which the Jews regarded prophecy 
and its fulfilment) than grammatical de- 
pravation ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, p. 
406 sq. After maturely weighing the 
2vidence adduced by Winer and others, 
few, perhaps, will hesitate to character- 
ize Fritzsche’s and Meyer’s strenuous 


ὑμῶν 


EPHESIANS. 


33 


17 &% 


ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 


denial of (2) and (3) as perverse, and 
the criticism of Eadie, who admitting 
(3), denies (2) after verbs of entreaty, 
as somewhat illogical. In the pres- 
ent case, independent of the parallelism 
afforded by numerous similar passages 
(ch. iii. 16, Phil. i. 9, Col. i. 9, iv. 3, 1 
Thess. iv. 1,2 Thess. i. 11), the presence 
of the opt. δῴη after the pres. (hoped for, 
dependent realization, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
11. p. 622, Bernhardy, Synt. xi. 11, p. 
407) inclines us distinctly to this sub- 
Jinal or secondary telic use; compare 
Winer, § 41. 1. obs. p. 260. On the 
late and incorrect form δῴη for δοίη, see 
Lobeck, Phyrn. p. 845, Sturz, de Dial. 
Maced. p. 52. ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Kv- 
ρίου] ‘the God of our Lord ;’ see John 
xx. 17, Matth. xxvii. 46. ‘Deus ejus est 
qua ex eo natus in Deum est,’ Hilar. de 
Trin. τν. 35, p. 96. The somewhat con- 
torted explanations of this and the fol- 
lowing clause, cited by Suicer (Thes. 
Vol. 1. p. 944), may be dispensed with 
if this only be observed, that ‘the word 
God was never looked upon as a word of 
office or dominion, but of nature and sub- 
stance,’ Waterland, Sec. Def. Qu. 11. Vol. 
11. p. 399. The admirably perspicuous 
distinctions of the same author, in Ans. 
to Pref. Vol. 11. p. 415, deserve perusal. 
ὁ πατὴρ τῆς SdEnS| ‘the Father of 
glory ;? comp. Psalm xxviii. 8, Acts vii. 
Ql Cor ies) ΕἸΘΌΣ τσ ρθη; ΟΕ 
characteristic quality, see Scheuerl. Synt. 
§ 16. 3, p. 115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 2. b, p. 
211. It is singular that a mere adjec- 
tival resolution (Riickert), or a poetical 
and less usual meaning of πατὴρ (sc. 
‘auctor,’ Job xxxviii. 28, probably Jas. 
i. 17, and perhaps Heb. xii. 9, but see 
context; not 2 Cor. i. 8 [Eadie], see De 
W., and Mey.), should so generally have 
been adopted instead of this simple and 
grammatical explanation. The use of 
πατὴρ was probably suggested by the 


94 


EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. I. 18. 


᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 6 πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, δῴη ὑμῖν Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ 


ΜΨ va: > 5 ¥ > an 
ἀποκαλύψεως, EV ἐπιγνώσει αὑτοῦ), 


foregoing mention of our Lord, while the 
qualifying gen. δόξης serves appropriately 
to carry on the ref. to the eternal glory 
of God which pervades the whole of the 
The reference, then, of 
δόξα to the glorified humanity (Stier), or 
to the divine nature of Christ (Athan , 
Greg -Naz., see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. 
p- 944) is by no means necessary. 


first paragraph. 


Πνεῦμα σοφίας κ. τ. A] ‘the Spirit 
of wisdom and revelation ; the character- 
izing genitives denoting the special forms 
and peculiar manifestations in which the 
Apostle prayed for the gift of the Spirit 
to his converts; compare Rom. i. 4, 2 
Cor. iy. 18, 2 Tim. i. 7, see notes on Gal. 
yi. 1, and on the omission of the article 
with Πνεῦμα, notes on zb., ch. v. 5. The 
favorite subjective and objective distinc- 
tions of Harl., viz. that cop. is the sub- 
jective state, ἀποκάλ. the objective me- 
dium, are not necessary, nor eyen, as 
the order (state to means, not vice versa) 
suggests, logically satisfactory ; copia is 
simply the general gift of illumination ; 
ἀποκάλ. the more special gift of insight 
into the divine mysteries; see further 
remarks in notes on 1 Zim. ii. 7. 

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει avtod| ‘in the (full) 
‘knowledge of Him, ‘in agnitione [or 
rather cognitione| ejus,’ Clarom., Vulg. ; 
ev not being for eis (Grot., Wolf) or διά 
(Beza), but, as usual, marking the sphere 
or element in which the action takes 
place; the knowledge of God (not 
Christ, Calv., to whom the first ref. is in 
ver. 20) was to be the sphere, the circum- 
ambient element in which they were to 
receive wisdom and revelation; compare 
2 Pet. i. 2, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 
48. a, p. 345. Ἔν ἐπιγν. thus belongs to 
the whole preceding clause, not specially 
to ἀποκάλ., still less to what follows 
(Chrys. Zachm., al.), both of which con- 
nections would interfere with the paral- 


/ 
* πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφ- 


lelism of ver. 15 and 16; πνεῦμα x. τ. A. 
being symmetrical with πεφωτ. κ. τ. Δ.» 
- ἐν ἐπιγν. with εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι. 
The ἐπὶ in ἐπίγνωσις may be either addi- 
tive (Eadie), in ref. to the increments of 
knowledge continually received, or, more 
probably, simply zntens7ve, scil. ‘cognitio 
accurata et certa,’ Bretschn., erkennt- 
niss; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, see Rost τι. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. ἐπὶ, iv. c. 5, and De- 
litasch. on Heb. x. 26. 

18. 
ϑαλμοὺ 9] ‘having the eyes of your heart 
enlightened.’ 


πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὃφ- 
Three constructions are 
here possible: (a) Accus. absolute, πε- 
φωτισμένους agreeing with ὀφϑαλμούς, 
Peile, Eadie. (0) Accusatival clause 
after, δῴη, καὶ being omitted to give the 
clause an emphatically appositional as- 
pect; see Harless and Stier. (c) Lax 
construction of part.; πεφωτ. referring 
to duty, and τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς being accus. 
of limiting reference; Winer, Gir. § 32. 
5. 6, p. 205, Madvig, Synt. § 31, comp. 
Hartung, Of these (a) is 
grammatically doubtful, for though such 
accusatives undoubtedly do exist, esp. in 
later writers, — see Wannowski's elabo- 
rate treatise de Construct. Abs. 1v. 5, p. 
146 sq.,—still they far more generally 
admit of an explanation from the con- 
text; see Winer, § 82. 7, p. 206, comp. 
Bernh Synt. 111. 30, p. 133. Again (0d), 
is somewhat grammatically doubtful, on 
account of the article (see Beng-), and 
certainly exegetically unsatisfactory, ‘en- 
lightened eyes’ rather defining the effect 
of the Spirit than forming any sort of 
apposition to It; see Meyer in loc. In 
(c) the connection of the accusatives is 
less simple, but the other syntactic diffi- 
culties are but slight, as a permutation 
of case, esp. in participial clauses, is not 
uncommon in the N. T. (e. g. Acts xy. 
22, Winer, ὁ 63. 1. 1, p. 500), nor with- 


‘asus, p. 62. 


Cuap. I. 18, 


EPHESIANS. 35 


v 


Sarpods τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, εἰς TO εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς 


out distinct parallel in classical Greek ; 
see exx. in Wannowski, Iv. 6, p. 169 
sq., Jelf, Gr. ὃ 711. ‘This then seems 
the most probable constr.: πεφώτ. k. τ. 
A. serves to define the result of the gift 
of the Spirit (comp. Phil. iii. 15, 1 
Thess. iii. 13, Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 
549 sq), and owing to the subsequent 
inf. (εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι) which expresses the 
purpose of the illumination, not unnatu- 
rally lapses into the accusative. 

τοὺς Oo. τῆς καρδίας] ‘the eyes 
of your heart; a somewhat unusual and 
figurative expression denoting the in- 
ward intelligence of that portion of our 
immaterial nature (the ψυχή), of which 
the καρδία is the imaginary seat; comp. 
Acta Thom. ὃ 28, τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφϑαλ- 
μούς, and see esp. Beck, Seelen/. 111. 24. 
3, p. 94 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. i. 5. 
On the use and meaning of φωτίζειν, 
here, to illuminate with the brightness of 
inner light, see esp. Harl. in loc., and 
contrast Eph. ili. 9, where, as the con- 
text shows, the illumination is of a na- 
ture less inward and vital; comp. Beck, 
Seelenl. 11. 13. 2, p. 37. The read- 
ing of Rec., 6p3. τῆς διανοίας, has only 
the support of some cursive mss. : 
Theod., QCicum. al. tls] ‘what.’ 
There appears no reason to adopt in 
this verse either a qualitative (‘ cujus- 
nam nature, Wahl, Harl.), or, what is 
appy. more questionable, a quantitative 
(ποταπήῇ, πόση, Holzh, Stier) transla- 
tion; the ordinary meaning ‘what’ 
(‘que spes,’ Vulg.), is fully sufficient, 
and includes all more special interpreta- 
tions. The articles with ἐλπὶς and πλοῦ- 
tos only serve to point them out as well- 
known and recognized, and as indirectly 
alluded to throughout the preceding par- 
agraph; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 27, 
p- 324, Stalb. Plato, Crit. 43 c. 

n ἐλπὶς x. τ. A.] ‘the hope of His call- 
ing,’ i. 6. the hope which the calling 


works in the heart; κλήσεως being the 
gen. of the causa efficiens, Scheuerl. 
Synt. ὃ 17, p. 125. Ἐλπὶς is thus not 
objective, τὸ ἐλπιζόμενον (Olsh., Eadie), 
a meaning scarcely fully substantiated 
even in Col. i. 5 (comp. notes zn loc.), 
and here certainly unnecessary, but as 
usual subjective; ἐπὶ ποίαις ἐλπίσι κεκ- 
λήμεϑα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, Theod. Like πίστις, 
it is probably occasionally used in an 
objective aspect (‘objectivirt’), as ‘the 
grounds, the state of hope,’ but just as 
πίστις is not used in the N. T. for ‘re- 
ligio Christiana’ (see on Gal. i. 23), so 
it is very doubtful whether ἐλπὶς ever 
fully amounts to ‘res sperata,’ as as- 
serted by Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 
1095. Tis 6 πλοῦτον K.T. A. 
‘what the riches of the glory of His inher- 
itance;’ a noble accumulation of (pos- 
sessive) genitives, setting forth the κλη- 
povoula on the side of its glory, and that 
glory on the side of its riches. All ad- 
jectival solutions, it need scarcely be 
said, are wholly inadmissible ; see notes 
on ver. 6, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 3.1, p. 
171 sq. The prefixed καὶ is omitted 
by Lachm. with ABDIFG; 59: Cla- 
rom., Sangerm., Amit., Goth., al., but 
appy. rightly retained by Tisch., Mey., 
al., with D8EKL; nearly all mss.; 
Copt., Syr. (both), al.; Orig. (Cat.), 
Chrys., Theod., — as the καὶ in the third 
member (ver. 19) might have so easily 
suggested an omission in the second. 

ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘among the saints ;’ 
a semi-local clause appended to τίς (ἐσ- 
tw) ὃ “πλοῦτος k. τ. A. defining the 
sphere (the whole community of the 
faithful, comp. Acts xx. 32, xxvi. 18) in 
which the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξ. τῆς KAnp. is 
peculiarly found, felt, and realized: com- 
pare Col. i. 27, and see Meyer, h. J. 
Harless connects ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις with KAn- 
ρον. αὐτοῦ, an interpretation exegetically 
tenable (see Stier in loc. p. 161 sq.), but, 


36 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. I. 19. 


an / > fa) \ if « a an ie an ͵΄ 
τῆς κλήσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ τίς ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας 


αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις, 


on account of the omission of the arti- 
cle, by no means so grammatically ad- 
missible, even in Hellenistic Greek, as 
the somewhat sweeping language of Alf. 
in loc. would lead us to conclude. For 
as the former clause contains a defined 
and self-subsistent idea (not merely κλη- 
pov. évk.7.A. Job xiii. 15, ete., but κλη- 
pov. αὐτοῦ, SC. Θεοῦ, a very distinct 
expression), the latter cannot easily be 
regarded as supplemental, and thus, as 
legitimately anarthrous; see notes on 
ver. 15. If, however, ἐν tots ay. be 
immediately connected with the unex- 
pressed ἐστί, the omission of the article 
will be less sensibly felt (comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 19. 2. b, p. 155), and the harmony 
in the three clauses fully preserved ; the 
first, ἐλπὶς x. τ. A. being stated generally, 
the second, πλοῦτος x. T. Δ.» more nearly 
specialized by ἐν τοῖς ay., the sphere in 
which it is found; the third, τὸ ὑπερβάλ- 
Aov k. T. A., by eis ἡμᾶς, the living 
objects towards whom it is, and will be, 
exercised. 

19. καὶ τί τὸ ὕπερβ. κ. τ. Χ.] 
‘and what (is) the exceeding greatness of 
His power ;’ specification of that by 
which hope becomes quickened and real- 
ized; ὅση τὶς περίεσται κτῆσις ayadav 
τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁγίοις ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος 
αἰῶνος, Theodorus, Chrys., Theoph., and 
Cécum. refer this clause simply to the 
present life. This is doubtful, as the 
foregoing expressions, ἐλπὶς and KAnpo- 
vouia (ch. v. 5, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, Gal. 
y. 21), and the reference in the following 
verse seem to point primarily to the 
power of God which shall hereafter 
quicken us even as it did Christ, and 
shall install us in our inheritance as it 
enthroned Him on the right hand of 
God. There is thus a kind of climax, 
— the hope which the calling awakens, 
—the exhaustless and inexpressible 


"Ὁ καὶ τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεδος τῆς δυνά- 


glory (Chrys.) of that inheritance to 
which hope is directed, — the limitless 
power that shall bestow it. Still the in- 
dividualizing εἰς ἡμᾶς seems to show 
that a secondary reference to the present 
quickening power in the hearts of be- 
lievers (ch. ii. 1, 5) is by no means to be 
excluded. ἡμᾶς 
πιστ.}] ‘to us-ward who are believing ;’ 
objects towards whom the exceeding 
greatness of the power is displayed; the 
eis ἡμᾶς not being dependent on τῆς δυ- 
νάμ. αὐτοῦ (Harl., citing 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 
where however eis ὑμᾶς is most probably 
to be joined with ζήσομεν ; see Meyer in 
loc.) but, as in the preceding member, 
on τί (ἐστί) and eis having its regular 
and primary sense of ethical direction, 
admirably expressed by ‘to us-ward,’ 
Auth. Ver.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. c. 
5, p- 353. The second and third clauses 
τίς 6 πλοῦτος κ. τ. λ., aNd τί τὸ ὕπερβ. kK. 
τ. A., are thus perfectly symmetrical, the 
substantival sub-clauses forming a paral- 
lelism to each other, and the preposi- 
tional sub-clause eis ἡμᾶς being struc- 
turally parallel to the preceding ἐν τοῖς 
ἁγίοις, while at the same time it prepares 
us for the latent apposition suggested by 
the ἐν Xp. which follows; see Stier in 
loc., p. 155. κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 
γειαν does not refer to all three clauses 
(Harl.), but, as the correspondence of 
ideas and language distinctly suggests, 
to that immediately preceding ; not, 
however, especially to πιστεύοντας 
(Riick.), for such a connection, though 
doctrinally unexceptionable (see Col. ii. 
12), is eregetically unsatisfactory from its 
interpolation of an unlooked-for idea, — 
viz., the origin and antecedents of faith. 
The reference, then, is simply to the 
whole clause, not, however, as an expla- 
nation (Chrys.) or amplification (Calv.) 
of this power, but, in accordance with 


> \ 
ers TOUS 


Crap. I. 20. 


EPHESIANS. 37 


fa) ’ a Ν \ , rn ΄ 
μεως αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας KATA τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Kpa- 


τους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, “ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἐγείρας 


the full ethical force of κατά (“ measure,’ 
‘proportion,’ Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, 
p- 239), as a definition of its mode of 
operation (Eadie), a mighty measure, a 
stupendous exemplar by which its infinite 
powers towards the believing, in its fu- 
ture, yea, and its present manifestations, 
might be felt, acknowledged, estimated, 
and realized; comp. Ignat. Trall. 9, 
where, however, the ὁμοίωμα of the ἔγερ- 
ots is more alluded to than in the pres- 
ent passage. As the meaning of κατὰ 
here falls short of ‘propter’ (compare 
Griesb. Opuscula, 11. 5), so it certainly 
transcends that of mere similitude. 

τῆς ἰσχύος] ‘the 
strength of His might, ‘robur potentix,’ 
Aith., scil. the strength which appertains 
to, is evinced by His ἴσχυς ; neither a 
Hebraism (Holzh.), nor a mere cumula- 
tive form of expression (Kiittn.), but a 
specification of the outcoming and exhi- 
bition of that power which is the divine 
attribute ; see ch. vi. 10, Dan. iv. 27. 
Each word has thus its distinct and 
proper force; ἔσχυς, as its derivation 
(toxw, ἔχω) implies, refers rather to pas- 
sive, inherent power (Mark xii. 30) ; κρά- 
τος (KPA, KAP, cogn. with κάρα, comp. 
Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. 178) to 
power evinced in action ; see Luke i. 51. 
The striking force of the expressions 
here used to specify this ‘eminent act of 
God’s omnipotency’ is well illustrated 
by Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 11. p. 
222 (ed. Burt.). 

20. ἣν ἐνήργησεν) ‘which He 
wrought,’ scil. ἣν évépyeay,—which act 
of omnipotence God, as the principal 
cause (see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 
I. p. 301, ed. Burt.), displayed in Christ, 
and in Him in us (‘innuit efficaciam Dei 
in credentibus,’ Cocc.) who share the 
humanity He vouchsafed to take, and 
are spiritually risen with our risen Lord; 


τοῦ κράτους- 


see Stier in loc. p. 172. The read- 
ing ἐνήργηκεν (AB; Cyr., Procop.) is 
adopted by Lachm., Mey., but, as nearly 
the same authorities [AB ; mss.; Aug., 
Vulg.; Eus., al.| also read καδίσας, must 
be regarded as very suspicious, and as a 
not unlikely emendation of style. 

ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ] ‘in Christ, in Him 
as our spiritual Head ; ἐν here being no 
mere ‘nota dativi,’ a construction now 
exploded in the N. T. (see Winer, Gir. ὃ 
31. 8, p. 195), but correctly indicating 
the substratum of the action; see notes 
on Gal. i. 24. It is scarcely necessary 
to recapitulate the caution of Theodoret 
and Theophyl., δῆλον δέ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα 
ὡς περὶ ἀνδρώπου τέϑεικε (Theod.), τὸ 
γὰρ ἀναστὰν ἄνϑρωπος, εἰ καὶ Θεῷ ἥνωτο 
(Theophyl.). In this passage, Phil. ii. 
6—11, and Col. i. 14—19, as Olsh. well 
observes, we find the entire Christology 
of St. Paul. ἐγείρα 5] ‘when He 
raised Him, Auth., or perhaps better ‘in 
that He raised Him, Arm. ; contempora- 
neous act with ἐνήργησεν, sce notes on 
γνωρίσας, ver. 9. καὶ ἐκάδισεν) 
‘and He set Him ;’ change from the par- 
ticipial structure to the finite verb, espe- 
cially designed to enhance the impor- 
tance of the truth conveyed by the 
participle ; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 
2. b, p. 505 sq. The distinctive and 
emphatic mention of the consequent and 
connected acts heightens the conception 
of the almighty ἐνέργεια of God (Father, 
Son, and Spirit, Pearson on Creed, Art. 
v. Vol. 1. p. 302), displayed in the res- 
urrection of Christ from the dead. On 
the session of Christ at the right hand of 
God, see Knapp, Scripta Var. Argun. 
Art. 11.; let these words of Bp. Pear- 
son’s, however, never be forgotten, ‘He 
shall reign for ever and ever, not only to 
the modificated eternity of His mediator- 
ship, but also to the complete eternity 


38 


EPHESIANS. 


Cap. 1910 


. πὸ Σ A \ ’ ΄ι 5 A ’ Coeur aA ’ / 
QUTOV εκ VEKPWV, Kab ἐκάδισεν εν δεξιᾷ QUTOU €V τοις ETTOUPAVLOLS 


Ἵ ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότη- 


of the duration of His humanity, which 
for the future is coéternal to His Di- 
vinity,’ Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 335. 

ἐν tots émovpaviors] ‘in the heav- 


ρ Vv 4 
enly places’ Losows [in clo] Syr., 


Goth., 7Eth.; see notes on ver. 3. It is 
scarcely possible to doubt that these 
The 
distinctly local expressions, ἐκάϑισεν, ἐν 
defi, —the Scripture doctrine of Christ’s 
literal and local ascent (Mark xvi. 19, 
al.), — His regal session in heayen in his 
glorified had resplendent Body (Acts vii. 
56, ἑστῶτα ἐκ Setiwy, al., see Phil. iii. 
20), — His future literal and local judi- 
ciary descent (Acts i. 11, ὃν τρόπον 


words have here a local reference. 


ededoacde αὐτὸν πορευόμενον), --- all tend 
to invalidate the vague and idealistic 
‘status celestis” urged by Harless in Joc. 
The choice of the more general expres- 
sion, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ., ‘in the heavenly re- 
gions’ (comp. ch. iy. 10), rather than the 
more specific ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς was perhaps 
suggested by the nature of the details in 
Welw le The reading οὐρανοῖς 
(Zachm. with B; al.; Victorin., Hil.), 
has weak external support, and seems 
an almost self-evident gloss. 

21. ὑπεράν ὦ] ‘over above,’ ‘supra,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., ‘ufaro,’ Goth.; not 
‘longe supra,’ Beza, Auth., Alf., al.: 
specification of the nature and extent 
of the exaltation. The intensive force 
which Chrys. and Theophyl. find in this 
word, ἵνα τὸ ἀκρότατον ὕψος δηλώσῃ, and 
which has recently been adopted by Stier 
and Eadie, is very doubtful; as is also 
the assertion (Eadie) that this prevails 
‘in the majority of passages’ in the 
ΤΟΝ SECOnS ZK. 1.9265, ‘Vall 12; xe 19, 
Xi. 22, xiii. 15, and even Deut. xxvi. 19, 
xxviii. 1. Such distinct instances as 
Ezek. xliii..15, and in the N. T., Heb. 
ix. 5, — the similarly unemphatic use of 


the antitheton ὑποκάτω, John i. 51, Luke 
viii. 10,— and the tendencies of Alex- 
andrian and later Greek to form dupli- 
cated compounds (see Peyron, ad Pap. 
Taurin. Vol. 1. p. 89) make it highly 
probable that ὑπεράνω, both here and ch. 
iv. 10, implies little more than simple 
local elevation. So too Syr. and appy. 
all the ancient Vv. πάσης" ἀρχῆς 
κι τ. λ.] ‘all (every) rule and authority 
and power and lordship ;’ no parenthesis, 
but a fuller explanation of ἐν τοῖς ἐπου- 
paviors; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64, 1. 2, p. 
614 (ed. 5). The context and the illus- 
trations afforded by ch. iii. 10, Col. i. 16, 
and 1 Pet. iii. 22, seem to preclude any 
mere generic reference to all forms of 
power and dominion (Olsh.), or any 
specific reference to the orders of the 
Jewish hierarchy (Schoettg.), or the 
grades of authority among men (see ap. 
Pol. Syn.). The abstract words (δυνά- 
μεών τινων ὀνόματα ἡμῖν ἄσημα, Chrys.) 
seem to be designations of the orders of 
heavenly Intelligences, and are used by 
St. Paul in preference to any concrete 
terms (ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων κ. τ. A.) tO 
express with the greatest aptitude and 
comprehensiveness the sovereign power 
and majesty of Christ; εἴ τι ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ 
οὐρανῷ, πάντων ἀνώτερος γέγονε, Chrys., 
see Caly. in loc. As this verse relates to 
Christ’s exaltation in heaven rather than 
His victory over the powers of hell (1 
Cor. xv. 24, comp. Rom. viii. 38), the 
reference is, probably, exclusively to 
good Angels and Intelligences, 1 Tim. v. 
21, Any attempt to define more closely 
(see authors cited in Hagenbach, 715]. of 
Doctr. ὃ 131, Petavius, de Angelis, 11. 1, 
Vol. 111. ps 101 sq.) is alike presumptu- 
ous and precarious: see the excellen 
remarks of Bp. Hall, Invisible World, 
Book 1. ὃ 7. On the nature of Angels, 
consult the able treatise by Twesten, 


ἄρ᾿ I. 22. 


EPHESIANS. 


39 


\ Ν 3 , ’ , / lal al 
τος, καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ 


ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῳ μέλλοντι, 


Dogmatik, Vol. 11. esp. § 1. 4, the essay 
by Stuart, Bibliotheca Sacra for 1843, 
pp. 88—154, Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 228 
sq. Vol. 1. p. 276, and the remarks of 
Lange, Leb. Jes. Part. 11. p. 41 sq. 

καὶ παντὺς dvdpatos| ‘and, in a 
word, every name named ;’ concluding 
and comprehensive 
having here that species of adjunctive 


designation ; καὶ 
force according to which a general term 
is appended to foregoing details; see 
Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, notes on 
Phil. iv. 12, Fritz. Matth. p. 786. Πᾶν 
ὄνομα is not ‘every title of honor,’ 
(Grinf. Scholl. Hell.), a particular expla- 
nation to which ὀνομαζ. (which has al- 
ways its simple meaning in the N. T., 
even in Rom. xy. 20, see Fritz.) is dis- 
tinctly opposed, — nor again, in refer- 
ence to Heavenly Powers which are 
ἀκατονόμαστοι (Theophyl.),—nor even 
as a generic representation of the fore- 
going abstract nouns (Wahl, Harless), 
—pbut simply with reference to every- 
thing in existence (‘quicquid existit,’ 
Beza), personal or impersonal, ‘every- 
thing bearing a name and admitting 
designation ;’ comp. Col. i. 16, where a 
similar latitude is implied by the four 
times repeated εἴτε, and see notes in 
loc. ov μόνον k.7.A.] clause 
appended not to ἐκάϑισεν (Beza Koppe), 
but to παντὸς ὀνόμ. dvouat., to which it 
gives a still further expansion, both in 
respect of time and locality, — every- 
thing named, whether now or hereafier, 
in the present state of things or the 


world to come; παντὸς ῥητοῦ καὶ ὄνυμασ- 
τοῦ, οὐ μόνον τοῦ ἐνταῦδα ὀνομαζομένου, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐκεῖϑεν δυναμένου ῥηδῆναι 
τῷ 
αἰῶνι τούτῳ] ‘this world,’ scil. ‘this 
present state of things,’ ‘systema rerum,’ 
Beng. With regard to the meaning of 
αἰὼν it may be observed that in all pas- 


kal ὀνομασϑῆναι, Cicum. 


92 ἊΝ / e f ἕξ (< Ἂς \ 46 
καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺυς TOOaS 


sages where it occurs, a temporal notion 
To this, in 
the majority, an ethical idea is united, so 


is more or less apparent. 


that αἰὼν οὗτος, as Olsh. has observed, is 
‘the temporary and terrestrial order of 
things, in which sin predominates (comp. 
Gesen. Ler. s. v. o>4z, B), to which 
αἰὼν μέλλων (= BantActe Θεοῦ), the holy 
state of things founded by Christ, is the 
exact contrast; see Comment. on Matth. 
xii. 31, 32, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 
500, 501 (Bohn). In a few passages, 
like the present, a semi-local meaning 
seems also superadded, causing αἰὼν to 
approach in meaning to κόσμος, though 
it still may be always distinguished from 
it by the temporal and commonly ethical 
notions which ever form its background ; 
see notes, ch. ii. 2. 

22. καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν] Sand 
put all things under His feet ;’ further 
specification of the majesty of Christ, — 
not only the highest conceivable exal- 
tation (ver. 21), but the most unbounded 
sovereignty. The strong similarity of 
the language scarcely leaves a doubt 
that here and Heb. ii. 8, there is a dis- 
tinct allusion to Psalm viii. 7, πάντα 
imératas ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ; 
comp. Gen. i. 38, Nor is this due to 
any ‘rabbinischtypischer Interpretation- 
sweise,’ (Mey.) on the part of St. Paul, 
but to a direct reference under the guid- 
ance of the Spirit, to a passage in the O. 
T., which, in its primary application to 
man, involves a secondary and more 
profound application to Christ. In the 
grant of terrestrial sovereignty the 
Psalmist saw and felt the antitypical 
mystery of man’s future exaltation in 
Christ, even more fully than Tholuck 
and even Hengstenberg in loc. appear to 
admit. The reference thus seems less to 
the subjugation of foes, as in 1 Cor. xv. 
27 (Hamm., Stier), than to the limitless 


40 


EPHESIANS. 


Cxap. I; 95 


A \ \ / Lowe J δ 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, “ἥτις 


nature of Christ’s sovereignty, which 
the words ὑπὸ τοὺς Kk. τ. A. (ἡ ἐσχάτη 
ὑποταγή, Chrys.) still more heighten and 
enhance. On this and the next verse 
see a sound sermon by Beveridge, in 
which the three points, Christ’s headship 
over all things, His headship to the 
Church, and His relation to it as His 
body, are well discussed, Serm. xxx11. 
Vol. 11. p. 124 sq. (A. C. Libr.) 

ἔδωκεν is not synonymous with 4hn:, 
ἔϑηκεν, ἔστησεν (Wolf, Holzh., and even 
Harl.), either here or ch. ivy. 11, but (as 
the dat. ἐκκλησίᾳ and the emphatic posi- 
tion of αὐτὸν seem to suggest) retains its 
primary and proper sense. The mean- 
ing then seems to be, though so exalted 
and so glorified, yet even Hrm did God, 
out of his boundless mercy and _benefi- 
cence, give to the Church to be its head. 
κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα] ‘head over 
all things.’ The exact construction and 
immediate reference of these words is 
not perfectly clear. 
dently qualifies kep., not, however, an 
immediate and adjectival epithet (‘sum- 
mum caput,’ Beza, Conyb.), but as an 
accessory and quasi-participial definition, 


Ὑπὲρ πάντα eyi- 


2. 6. ὑπερέχουσαν πάντων ; πάντα being 
used in exactly the same general sense 
as before, without any limiting reference 
to τῇ ἐκκλ. (Harl.), or any implied con- 
trast to other subordinate heads, apos- 
tles, prophets, etc. (Olsh.). 
κεφ. may be regarded either as (a) a sim- 
ple appositional accus. to the preceding 
αὐτόν, a second κεφ. being supplied (per 
brachylogiam) before τῇ éxkKa., —‘ He 
gave Him, Head over all, (as Head) to 
his Church ;’ comp. Jelf, Gr. § 893. ¢.; 
or (b) as an accus. of further predica- 
tion, serving to complete the notion of 
the verb, and forming a species of ter- 
tiary predicate (Donalds. Gr. § 489), — 
‘He gave Him as head over all,’ 7. 6. ‘in 
the capacity of head over all; compare 


The accus. 


Madvig, Synt. § 24. a, and see the vari- 
ous exx. in Donalds. Gr. § 490. Of 
these (a) was adopted in ed. 1 (so also 
Stier, Mey.), and coincides in meaning 
with the ungrammatical order (ἔδωκεν 
αὐτὸν [ὄντα] ὑπὲρ πάντα κεφ. TH ἐκκλ.) 
of Syr., ἀὐῃ.-Ρ] αἴ, Chrys., al., but is, 
grammatically considered, less simple 
than (b), and, considered exegetically, 
but little different in meaning: if God 
gives Christ to the Church, and Christ 
at the same time is Head over all things 
(tertiary predication) He becomes neces- 
sarily head to the Church. It seems 
best, then, with (appy.) Syr.-Phil., 
Vulg., Clarom., Arm., to adopt the lat- 
ter view; comp. Alf. in loc. 

23. ἥτι 5] ‘which indeed ;’ not exactly 
‘ut que,’ Meyer, but ‘que quidem,’ the 
force of the indef. relative being here 
rather explanatory than causal, and sery- 
ing to elucidate the use and meaning of 
κεφαλὴ by the introduction of the cor- 
On the uses of 
ὕστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. τὸ 
σῶμα αὐτοῦ] ‘His hody;’ not in any 
merely figurative sense, but really and 
truly; the Church is the veritable body 
of Christ mystical (ch. iv. 12, 16, esp. v. 
30), no mere institution subject to Him 
as to a κεφαλὴ used in any ethical sense, 
but united to Him as to a κεφαλὴ used 
in its simple and literal sense; ἵνα yap 


responding term σῶμα. 


> 


μὴ, ἀκούσας κεφαλὴν, ἀρχήν τινα καὶ ἐξου- 
σίαν νομίσῃς, σωματικῶς φησίν, ἡμῶν ἐστί 
κεφαλή, (ει. This great and vital 
truth, and the nature of our union with 
Christ which it involves and implies, is 
well illustrated in the beautiful treatise 
of Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, esp. ch. 
VII. τὸ πλήρωμα κ. τ. λ.] ‘the 
fulness of Him that jilleth all things with 
all things;’ apposition to the preceding 
τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ designed still more to 
expand the full meaning of the pre- 
ceding identification of the Church with 


Cnap. I. 23. 


EPHESIANS. 


41 


3 \ \ A 5 A \ / rn \ A 
ἐστὶν TO σῶμα αὐτοῦ, TO πλήρωμα τοῦ Ta πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν 


πληρουμένου. 


the Lord’s body, the general truth con- 
veyed being τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 7 
ἐκκλησία, Chrys. The special meaning 
and reference of these mysterious words 
has been greatly contested. This, how- 
ever, seems clear (esp. after the long 
and careful note of Fritz. on Rom. xi. 
12, Vol ir. p. 469), that πλήρωμα is here 
used passively, and that of its two pas- 
sive meanings, (a) 7d quod impletum est, 
and (b) 7d quo res impletur (see notes on 
Gal. iv. 4), the former, sc. τὸ πεπληρω- 
μένων, though less common (compare 
Lucian, Ver. Hist. 11. 37, δύο πληρωμά- 
των, ‘manned ships’), is here alone 
applicable. The Church, then, is τὸ 
TeTAnpwuevovy, —not, however, in the 
sense ‘plenum Christi agmen,’ ‘homi- 
num a Christo impletorum caterva,’ as 
Fritz. paraphrases, but in a simple and 
almost local sense, ‘that which is filled 
up by Christ,’ ‘the receptacle’ (Eadie), 
as it were, of all the gifts, graces, and 
blessings of Christ; comp. Philo, de 
Prem. εἰ Pen. p. 920, where the soul is 
called a πλήρωμα ἀρετῶν, and contrast 
the opposed κένωμα, as used by the 
Gnostics to express the void world of 
sense; Baur Gnosis, p. 157, 462 (cited 
by Mey.). ἐν πᾶσιν πλη- 
ρουμ.] ‘Of Him who filleth all things 
with all things,’ ‘ qui rerum universitatem 
omnibus rebus [5101] implet,’ Fritz.; ἐν 
being here used in its instrumental sense 
(see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), as serving 
to specify that with which the filling 
takes place (see ch. v. 18), and πᾶσιν 
being used with an equal latitude to τὰ 
πάντα (ver. 22) as implying, not only 
‘all blessings’ (Eadie), but ‘all things’ 
unrestrictedly ; for by Christ was the 
whole Universe made, and all things 
therein ;: see Col. i. 16, and comp. in ref. 
generally to the terms of the expression, 
Philo, Sacrif. Cain, § 18, Vol. 1. p. 175 
(ed. Mang.), πεπληρωκὼς πάντα διὰ πάν- 


6 


των. It has been doubted whether πλη- 
ροῦσϑαι is (a) passive as Vule,, Clarom., 
Chrys., al., or (Ὁ) middle, as Syr., Copt., 
Goth., Arm., whether in a purely active 
sense (Xen. Hell. v1. 2. 14, 35, see exx. 
in Rost πὶ. Palm, Lex. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 
956), or perhaps, as this unique use of 
the middle in the N. T. suggests, in a 
specially reciprocal sense ‘sibi implere.’ 
Of these the latter alone seems admissi- 
ble, as the idea of Christ receiving com- 
pletion in His members (Est., compare 
Harl.) implies restrictions little accord- 
ant with the inclusive τὰ πάντα. ‘The 
meaning of the whole then would seem 
to be, —that the Church is the veritable 
mystical Body of Christ, yea the recipi- 
ent of the plenitudes of Him who filleth 
all things, whether in heaven or in earth, 
with all the things, elements, and enti- 
ties of which they are composed. And 
this, as both the parallelism of τὸ σῶμα 
αὐτοῦ and τὸ mAnp. k. τ. A. and the ab- 
sence of any hint of a change of per- 
son seem distinctly to suggest, must be 
referred, not to God (Theod. Alf.) but 
to Christ ; see esp. ch. iv. 10. On 
the doctrine of the omnipresence of 
Christ, an eternal truth of vital impor- 
tance (Bull, Def. Fid. Mic. §4.3.1 sq., 
Waterland, Sermon vit. 3, Vol. 11. p. 
164), to which this verse seems to al- 
lude, see notes on ch. iv. 10, Jackson, 
Creed, Book xt. 8, 10 sq, and the calm 
and conciliatory observations of Marten- 
sen, Dogmatik, ὃ 177 sq. Well and 
clearly has it been said by Andrews, 
‘Christ is both in Heayen and earth: as 
He is called the Head of His Church, 
He is in Heaven, but in respect of 
His body which is called Christ He is 
on earth,’ Serm. x11. Vol ν. p. 407. 

The omission of τὰ (Rec.) is opposed 
to all the MSS. and to the majority of 
mss., and adopted by none of the best 
recent editors. 


42 


You too who were dead in 
sin He hath quickened, 


Il. 


vation is by grace, not works. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. II. 1. 


\ e a , \ a 
Kai ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώ- 


raised, and even enthroned with and in Christ, to show all ages the riches of His grace and love. 


Your sal- 


1. ὑμῶν] This word was omitted in ed. 1 with Rec. and Tisch. (ed. 2) on the 
authority of KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys. Dam., al.,—but, though some- 
what doubtful on account of the variation of A (ἑαυτῶν), is appy. to be restored on 
the greatly preponderating authority of BDEFG; 15 mss.: nearly all Vv.; 


Theod., al. 

Cuaprer II. 1. καὶ twas] ‘And 
you also,’ ‘you too;’ special address and 
application of the foregoing to the case 
of the readers; καὶ neither (a) simply 
connecting the verse with what precedes, 


? 


sc. καὶ ὑπέταξεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν, kal ὑμᾶς K. 
τ. A. (Lachm.), — as ver. 23 is plainly a 
conclusion of the foregoing clause, nor 
(0) serving to introduce a special exem- 
plification of the general act of grace in 
ver. 23 (Peile),— as the force of the 
correlation between νεκροὺς and ouve wr. 
is thus seriously impaired, but ratber (c) 
applying what has been said to the ὑμᾶς, 
to which word it gives emphasis and 
prominence. The Ephesians are re- 
minded how they also had experienced 
in their moral death the energy of the 
same quickening power which raised 
Christ from physical death (ch. i. 20), 
the ascensive force of καὶ being just per- 
ceptible in the implied parallelism be- 
tween the νέκρωσις ψυχικὴ in the case of 
the Ephesians (see next note), and the 
νέκρωσις σωματικὴ on the part of Christ 
(ch. i. 20); comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p. 636. The connection has also its 
difficulties. According to the most sim- 
ple view, ver. 1, after having its struc- 
ture interrupted by the two relatival sen- 
tences, ver. 2, 8, is renewed in ver. 4 
(not ver. 5, Schott.), by means of δὲ 
resumptive (Herm. Viger, No. 544), and 
there further elucidated by the inter- 
polated nominat. Θεός, expanded in ap- 
plication by the more comprehensive 
ἡμᾶς, and concluded in yer. 5; see The- 
ophyl. in loc. ὄντας νεκροῦ] 
‘being dead,’ se. spiritually ; νέκρωσις οὐκ 


So Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1 and 3.) 


3 


ἡἣ σωματική, ἣ ἐκ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ἀρξαμένη, 


5) 


ἀλλὰ ἡ ψυχική, ἡ ἐξ ἡμῶν συνισταμένη, 
Theophyl. ; compare Bramhall, (δέν. 
111. 2, Vol. rv. 233 (Angl. Cath. Lib.). 
The proleptic reference to physical 
death, scil. ‘certo (Mey-), 
seems irreconcilable with the context. 
The πλούσιος dy ἔν ἐλέει, which seems 
to specify God's mercy in extending the 
exercise of His resurrectionary power, 
would thus lose much of its appropriate- 
ness, and the particle καὶ (ver. 5) its 
proper ascensive force. On this and the 
two following verses, see a good prac- 
tical sermon by Usher, Serm. 1v. Vol. 
xl. p. 45 (ed. Elringt.) 
παραπτώμασιν κ. τ. A.) ‘by the tres- 


morituri’ 


τοῖς 


passes and sins which ye had committed,’ 
‘delictis et peccatis,’ Vulg., Goth.; not 
‘in delictis,’ ete., Arm.; the dat. being 
appy. that of the causa instrumentalis ; 
see Hartung, Casus, p. 79, Winer, Gr. § 
31. 7, p. 194. In the closely parallel 
passage Col ii. 13, νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς 
παραπτώμασιν, the same general senti- 
ment is expressed under slightly differ- 
ent relations; here sin is conceived as 
that which kills (Olsh.); there it is de- 
scribed as the element or state in which 
the νέκρωσις shows and reveals itself; 
comp. notes in loc. It is doubtful 
whether the distinction drawn by Titt- 
mann (Synon, p. 45) between παραπτ., 
sins rashly (‘a nolente facere injuriam ἢ), 
and ἁμαρτίαι sins designedly committed, 
can be fully substantiated ; both equally 
referring to ‘peccata actualia,’ whether 
in thought, word, or deed, and differing 
more in the images (‘ missing,’ ‘ stum- 


Cuap. II. 2. 


EPHESIANS. 


43 


\ - - / fal - 
μασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, "ἐν αἷς ποτὲ περιεπατήσατε 


bling’) under which they are presented 
to our conception, than in the degree of 
intention ascribed to the perpetrator ; 
see Fritz. Rom. v. 15, Vol. 1. p. 324, 
comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 2, 
Vol. 1. p. 92 (Clark). Perhaps we may 
say generally, that παραπτώματα, as its 
derivation suggests, is the more limited 
term, viz. particular, special acts of sin ; 
ἁμαρτίαι [a pepos, μείρω, Buttm. Lexil. 
No. 15, note], the more inclusive and 
abstract, viz. all forms, phases and 
movements of sin, whether entertained 
in thought or consummated in act ; com- 
pare notes on Col. ii. 16. 

2. ἐν ais] ‘in which;’ not so much 
with ref. to the prevailing direction (De 
Weitc), as the sphere in which they 
habitually moved. It does not, how- 
ever, seem necessary to press the mean- 
ing of περιπατεῖν (‘sphere in which they 
trod,’ Eadie) this being one of those 
words in the N. T. which are used with 
so strong a Hebraistic coloring (see the 
list, Winer, Gr. ὃ 3, p. 81), that in sey- 
eral passages it denotes little more than 
‘vivere ;’ see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 12, Vol. 
111. p. 141, Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 
Tepe «679: τὸν αἰῶνα κ. τ. A.| 
‘according to the course of this world,’ 

oo 2 ο > ρ ° 
Auth. Lior ἰδοῦν.» oZostaSs 
[mundanitatem mundi hujus] Syr.; the 
ethical meaning of αἰὼν here appy. pre- 
dominating; see on ch. i. 22. In such 
cases as the present the meaning seems 
to approach that of ‘ tendency, spirit, of 
the age’ (Olsh.), yet still not without 
distinct trace of the regular temporal 
notion, which, even in those passages 
where αἰὼν seems to imply little more 
than our ‘world’ (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10), 
may still be felt in the idea of the (evil) 
course, development, and progress (‘ ubi 
xtas mala malam excipit’) that is tac- 
itly associated with the term ; see Beng. 


in loc., and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chret. 
Iv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 228. Any Gnostic 
reference (Baur, Paulus, p. 433), as St. 
Paul’s frequent use of the word satisfac- 
torily proves, is completely out of the 
question. κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα 
k. τ. A.| ‘according to the prince of the 
power or empire of the air,’ scil. the 
devil; climax to the foregoing member, 
the contrast being κατὰ Θεόν, ch. iv. 24. 
Without entering into the various inter- 
pretations these difficult words have re- 
ceived, we will here only notice briefly, 
(1) the simple meaning of the words ; 
(2) (3) 
their probable explanation. (1) the 
two cardinal words are ἐξουσία and ἀήρ. 
The former, like many words in --ἰία 
(Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 2, p. 47), appears 
used, not exactly for ἐξουσίαι, scil. as an 
abstract implying the concrete posses- 
sors of the ἐξουσία (comp. Dionys. Hal. 
vil. 44), but as a collective designation 
of their empire and sovereignty, see esp. 
Lobeck Phryn. p. 469. ᾿Αὴρ is used 
thrice by St. Paul besides this place, 
thrice in the rest of the N. T., — (a) 
‘the air’ simply and generally, Acts 
xxii 23,1 Cor. ix. 26, xiv. 9, and appy. 
Rev. ix. 2,— (8) as ‘the 
probably, strict physical reference, Rey. 
xvi. 17, — (y) as ‘the air or sky,’ appy. 
tacitly correlative to γῆ (the seat of the 
περιλειπόμενοι), 1 Thess. iv. 17. We 
seem, then, bound to reject all partial 
interpretations, 6. g. σκότος (Heinsius, 
Kuttn. ap. Peile), πνεῦμα (Hofmann 
Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 403), and to leave 
the context to define the specific mean- 
ing and application of the word. (2) 
The gen. ἀέρος is not a gen. objecti, ‘cui 
potestas est aeris,’ Beza; nor qualitatis, 
scil. ἀέριος, ἀσώματος (so Phrys., appy., 
but not the Greek Fathers generally), 
but a gen. of place, denoting their évaé- 
ριον διατριβήν (Cacum.), the seat of their 


their grammatical connection ; 


air,’ with, 


44 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. 11. 2. 


κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ TOV ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξου- 


σίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς 


spiritual empire; οὐχ ὡς τοῦ ἀέρος δεσ- 
πόζντα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς αὐτῷ ἐμφιλοχωρουντα, 
Theophyl.; compare Bernhardy, Synt. 
ὙΠ 33. a, p. 137. (3) The explana- 
tion really turns on the latitude of mean- 
ing assigned to ἀήρ. Without venturing 
to deny that the word may mysteriously 
intimate a near propinquity of the spirits 
of evil, it may still be said that the lim- 
itation to the physical atmosphere (Mey.) 
is as precarious in doctrine as the refer- 
ence to some ideal ‘atmosphere belting 
a death-world’ (Eadie), or to the com- 
mon parlance of mankind (Alf.), is too 
vague and undefined. The natural ex- 
planation seems to be this, — that as 
οὐρανὸς is used in a limited and partial 
(Matt. vi. 26), as well as an uncircum- 
scribed meaning, so conversely ἀήρ, which 
is commonly confined to the region of 
the air or atmosphere, may be extended 
to all that supra-terrestrial but sub-celes- 
tial region (6 ὑπουράνιος τύπος, Chrys.) 
which seems to be, if not the abode, yet 
the haunt of evil spirits; see esp. LXX., 
Job i. 7, ἐμπεριπατήσας τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν ; 
compare Olsh. in loc., and Stuart, Bibl. 
Sacra for 1848, p. 139; see also Hagen- 
bach, Stud. τι. Krit. Vol. 1. 479. Quo- 
tations out of Rabbinical writings and 
Greek philsophers will be found in 
Wetst., and Harl. zn /oc., but that St. 
Paul drew his conceptions from the for- 
mer (Mey.) or the latter (Wetst.), we 
are slow indeed to believe; see the re- 
marks on Gal. ch. iv. 24. τοῦ 
mvevpatos| ‘the spirit;’ scil. the evil 
principle of action, more specially de- 
fined by the succeeding words. The 
explanation of this gen. is not easy, as 
exegesis appears to suggest one construc- 
tion, grammar another. The most con- 
venient assumption, an anomaly of case 
(gen. for accus. in apposition to τὸν apx. 
x. T.A., Heinichen, Euseb. JZist. Eccl. y. 


᾽ 


20, Vol. ii. p. 99), is so doubtful, that it 
seems best, with Winer (Gr. 67. 3, p. 
558), to regard the gen. as dependent on 
τὸν ἄρχοντα, and in apposition with ἐξου- 
σίας ; πμεῦμα not referring, like ἐξουσία, 
to the aggregate of individual πνεύματα 
(πάντος évaepiov πνεύματος, Theophyl., 
compare Eadie, Alf.), a very doubtful 
meaning, owing to the difference of ter- 
mination, but to the evil principle which 
animated the empire, and emanated from 
Satan, the ruler of it. There is con- 
fessedly an exegetical difficulty in the 
expression τὸν ἄρχ. τοῦ πνεύμ. ; this, 
however, may be removed either by sup- 
plying a similar but more appropriate 
substantive out of τὸν a&x., or (what is 
in effect the same) by observing that τοῦ 
πνεύματος has a species of objective 
meaning reflected on it from the words 
with which it is in apposition. There is 
probably, as Harless and Meyer suggest, 
a tacit antithesis in τοῦ πν. to the Πνεῦμα 
τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 12. 

νῦν is commonly referred to the period 
since the redemption, the time of in- 
creased satanic energy and of hottest 
strife (De Wette); comp. Rey. xii. 12. 
This, however, is more than the words 
seem intended to convey. As ποτέ, ver. 
1, is again repeated ver. 3, the natural 
antithesis appears νῦν---ποτέ; the Apos- 
tle specifies the still active existence in 
one class, the children of disobedience, 
of the same spirit which formerly wrought 
not only in his readers, but in all; sim. 
Hammond and Harless in doc. 
υἱοῖς τῆς a&metd.| ‘the sons of diso- 
bedience;’ a Hebraistic circumlocution 
nearly equivalent to οἱ ἐξ ἀπειϑείας 
(compare Fritz. Rom. ii. 16, Vol. i. p. 
105), and serving to mark more vividly 
than the adjectival construction the essen- 
tial and innate disobedience of the sub- 
jects, —a disobedience to which they 


τοῖς 


Cuap. II. 3. 


EPHESIANS. 


45 


» t 3 3 e Nore a ΄ ᾽ , t 3 a 
ἀπειδείας, εν OLS και NMELS παντες ἀνεστράφημεέν TTOTE ἐν TALS 


ἐπιϑυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν, ποιοῦντες τὰ ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς 


belong as chidren to a parent; comp. ch. 
v. 6, Col. iii. 6 (notes), 1 Thess. v. 5 
(notes), 2 Thess. ii. 3, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 34. 3.b, 2, p. 153, and Gurlitt, 
Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 728. ᾿Απειϑεία, 
as in Col. iii. 6 (see critical note zn /oc.), 
is obviously neither ‘diffidentia’ (Vulg., 
Clarom., ‘ungalaubeinais,’ Goth. ; com- 
pare /Eth.), nor ἀπάτη (Chrysost.), but 


‘ disobedience,’ [ZotmsasAte ts 
3 Ο o == w ae 


[inobedientize] (Syr., Arm.), whether to 
the message of the Gospel or the man- 
dates of the conscience, — sin, in fact, in 
its most enhanced form, the violation of 
the dependence of the creature on the 
Creator; see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 
2, Vol. 1. p. 91 (Clark). 

3. ἐν ois] ‘among whom,’ Auth., 
scil. ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες, Riick.; not ἐν ois 
SC. παραπτώμασιν (Syr., Hier.), in which 
case ver. 2 would illustrate the ἅμαρτ., 
ver. 3 the maparr. The parallelism (ἐν 
αἷς----ν ois) is a specious argument for 
such a reference (see Stier in loc., p. 
252); still, grammatical perspicuity, the 
studied change to ἀνεστράφ., and still 
more the very general nature of the dis- 
tinction between παραπτώματα and ἅμαρ- 
tia are seriously opposed to it; comp. 
2 Cor. i. 12, where ἄνεστρ. is similarly 
used with a double ἔν, the first (semi- 
local) referring to the surrounding ob- 
jects, 1 Tim. iii. 15, the second (ethical) 
to the element in which they moved, 2 
Pet. ii. 18. kal ἡμεῖς πάντ εΞ9] 
‘even we all;’ Jews and Gentiles, not 
Jews alone (Mey.). As ὑμεῖς (ver. 1, 2) 
denotes the Gentile world, so it might be 
argued ἡμεῖς would seem naturally to 
refer to the Jews. To this, however, 
the addition of πάντες presents an insu- 
perable objection, as almost obviously 
designed to preclude any such _limita- 
tion, and to expand the reference to both 


classes (σὺν τάττει καὶ ἑαυτόν, Theod.) ; 
we all, called and reclaimed Jews and 
converted Gentiles, were once members 
of that fearful company, the viol τῆς 
amewelas; comp. Alf. in loc. 
ϑελήματα τῆς σαρκός] ‘the (va- 
rious) desires of the flesh.’ The plural 
is not elsewhere found in the N. T. (Acts 
xiii. 22 is a quotation), though not un- 
usual in the LXX; Psalm. cx. 2, 2 
Chron. ix. 12, Isaiah xliv. 28, lviii. 13, 
al. It here probably denotes the various 
exhibitions and manifestations of the 
will, and is thus symmetrical with, but a 
fuller expansion of ἐπιϑυμίαις. On the 
true meaning of σάρξ, ‘the life and 
movement of man in the things of the 
world of sense,’ see Miiller, Doctr. of 
Sin, τι. 2, Vol. 1. p. 352 sq., and esp. 
notes on Gal.v.16. τῶν διανοιῶν] 
‘of the thoughts,’ scil. ‘ of the evil thoughts’ 
(compare διαλογισμοὶ, πονηροί Matth. xv. 
19); the ethical meaning, however, not 
being due to the plural (‘die schwan- 
kenden wechselnden Meinungen,’ Harl.), 
but, as Mey. justly observes, to the con- 
text; comp. τὰ διανοήματα, Luke xi. 17. 
It is added, not to strengthen the mean- 
ing of σάρξ (Holzh.), but to include 
both sources whence our evil desires 
emanate, the worldly (sensual) tendency 
of our life on the one hand, and the spir- 
itual sins of our thoughts and intentions 
on the other; so Theod. in loc., except 
that he too much limits the meaning of 
σάρξ. On the meaning of διανοίαι, as 
usually marking the motions of the 
thoughts and will on the side of their 
outward manifestations, see Beck, Seelent. 
11. 19, p. 58. ἢ μεν] ‘and we 
were ;’ with great definiteness as to the 
relation of time, the change of construc- 
tion from the (present) part. to the oratio 
directa being intended to give emphasis 
to the weighty clause which follows (see 


x 
τα 


καὶ 


40 


\ aA a 
καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ 
*6 δὲ Θεὸς, πλούσιος 


notes, ch. i. 20), and also to disconnect 
it from any possible relation to the pres- 
ent; ‘we were children of wrath by na- 
ture, —it was once our state and condi- 
tion, it is now so no longer.’ 

τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆ 5] ‘children by 
nature — of wrath. This important 
clause can only be properly investi- 
gated by noticing separately (1) the 
simple meaning of the words; (2) their 
grammatical connection; (3) their proba- 
(1) We 
begin with (a) τέκνα, which is not simply 
identical with the Hebraistic υἱοί, ver. 2, 
but, as Bengel obviously felt, is more 
significant and suggestive; see Steiger 
on 1 Pet. i. 14. The word arouses the 
attention; ‘we were téxva,’—that be- 
speaks a near and close relation, — but 
of what? Of God? No, —‘of wrath ;’ 
its actual and definite objects; see Stier 
in loc. p. 256, and comp. Hofm. Schrifib. 
Vol. τ. p. 497. (b) ᾿Οργὴ has its proper 
meaning, and denotes, not τιμωρία or 
κόλασις itself (Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 
11. p. 505), but the moving principle of 
it, God’s holy hatred of sin, which re- 
veals itself in His punitive justice ; com- 
pare Rom. i. 18. (c) The meaning of 
φύσει has been much contested. The 
general distinction of Waterland (Second 
Defence Qu. xx1v. Vol. 11. p. 723) seems 
perfectly satisfactory that φύσει in Scrip- 
ture relates to something inherent, in- 
nate, fixed, and implanted from the first, 
and is in opposition to something acces- 
sional, superinduced, accidental; or, as 
Harl. more briefly expresses it, ‘das 
Gewordene in Gegensatz zum Gemach- 
ten;’ compare Thorndike, Covenant of 
Guin, απ 1.0. ΟἹ] rate joy 170 (WANG (CE 
Libr.). 
be determined by the context: compare 
Gal. ii. 15, Rom. ii. 14, Gal. iv. 8, where 
φύσει respectively means, (a) transmit- 


ble dogmatical application. 


The more exact meaning must 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. II. 4. 


5 , , > a ε \ c ΄, 
ἣμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί 
BY ’ 5 / Ν \ \ 5 ΄ > nr 
ὧν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ 


ted, inborn nature ; (β) inherent nature ; 
(y) essential nature. The connection 
must here guide us. (2) Connection. 
Φύσει is to be joined with τέκνα, not 
ὀργῆς (Holzh., Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τ. p. 
497), and defines the aspect under which 
the predicate shows itself (see Madvig, 
Synt.§ 40); the unusual order [ADEFGL 
reverse it but appy. by way of emenda- 
tion] appearing to have arisen from a 
limitation of a judgment which St. 
Paul was about to express unlimitedly ; 
the Jews were the covenant people of 
God; Jews and Gentiles (ἡμεῖς) could 
not then equally and unrestrictedly be 
called τέκνα ὀργῆς; see Miiller, Doctr. 
of Sin, 1v. 2, Vol. 11. p. 306. (3) The 
doctrinal reference turns on the meaning 
of φύσει. This the limiting connection 
seems to show must imply what is ¢nnate ; 
for if it implied ‘habitual or developed 
character’ (e. g. ZBlian, Var. Hist. 1x. 1, 
φύσει φιλάργυρος ; see exx. in Wetst., 
and compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. τ. p. 116), 
there would be little need of the limita- 
tion, and little meaning in the assumed 
contrast, ‘filii adoptione,’ Estius ap. Poli 
Syn. This is further confirmed by the 
tense (see above) and the argument ‘ex 
simili’ in ὡς Kal of λοιποί (ἦσαν), for it 
must have been some universal state to 
have applied to all the rest of mankind. 
Still it must fairly be said the unem- 
phatic position of φύσει renders it doubt- 
ful whether there is any special contrast 
to χάριτι, or any direct assertion of the 
doctrine of Original Sin; but that the 
clause contains an indirect, and therefore 
even more convincing assertion of that 
profound truth, it seems impossible to 
deny. The very long but instructive 
note of Harless in loc. may be consulted 
with profit. 

4. ὃ δὲ eds] ‘but God.’ 
tion of ver. 1 


Resump- 
after the two relatival 


πα. EGY 


EPHESIANS. AG 


ἃ » / id a 5 wt) rn “- 
ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, ° καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν 


sentences, ἐν ais ver. 2, and ἐν οἷς ver. 3; 
δέ being correctly used rather than οὖν, 
as the resumption also involves a con- 
trast to the preceding verse. The decla- 
ration of the ἔλεος of God forms an 
assuring and consoling antithesis to the 
foregoing statement that by nature all 
were the subjects of His ὀργή. On the 
use of δὲ after a parenthesis, see Motz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 877, Hartung, Partik. 
δὲ, 3. 2, Vol. p. 173; the use of ‘autem’ 
in Latin is exactly similar, see esp. 
Hand, Tursell. s. v. § 9, Vol. 1. p. 569; 
Beza’s correction of the Vulg., ‘sed’ 
instead of ‘autem’ is therefore not neces- 
sary. πλούσιος ὧν k. τ. A.J 
“being rich in mercy,’ scarcely ‘ut qui 
dives sit,’ Beza (comp. Madvig, Lat. 
Gramm. ὃ 366. 2), as the participial 
clause does not here so much assign the 
reason, as characterize, in the form of a 
secondary predicate of time, ‘being as 
He is’ (compare Donalds. Gr. § 442. a) 
the general principle under which the 
divine compassion was exhibited. The 
more particulur motive (De W.) is stated 
in the succeeding clause. The expres- 
sion πλούσιος ἐν (οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἐλεήμων, 
Chrys.) occurs James ii. 5, and points to 
the object or sphere in which the rich- 
ness is apparent; compare 1 Cor. i. 5. 
On the distinction between ἔλεος (‘ipsum 
miseris succurrere studium’) and οἰκτιρ- 
pos (‘ipsa tantum misericordia’), see 
Tittm. Synon. p. 69 sq. ἣν nya- 
πησεν ἣ μᾶ 5] ‘wherewith He loved us ;’ 
cognate accus., serving to add force and 
emphasis to the meaning of the verb; 
see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 200, 
and in Donalds. Gr. § 466. The pro- 
noun ἡμᾶς obviously includes both Jew- 
ish and Gentile Christians, and is codx- 
tensive with ἡμεῖς πάντες, ver. 3. 

5. καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς vexp.| ‘even 
while we were dead ;’ καὶ not being otiose 
(comp. Syr., th.), nor simple copula 


(Mey.), nor as a mere repetition of καί, 
ver. 1, but qualifying ὄντας (Syr.-Phil.), 
and suggesting more forciply than in 
ver. 1 (where it qualifies ὑμᾶς) the might 
of the quickening power of God which 
extended even to a state of moral death. 
Kal νεκροὺς x. τ. A. would certainly seem 
a more natural order (Fritz. Conject. in 
N. T. p. 45; comp. Chrys. τοὺς νεκρούς 
ον τούτους ἐζωοπ.), but as St. Paul seems 
to wish to make their state of death its 
permanence and its endurance, more felt 
than the mere fuct of it, the ascensive 
particle is joined with the participle 
rather than with the predicate; see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 638. 
συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Xp.| ‘He to- 
gether quickened with Christ, not ‘in 
Christ,’ Copt., Arm. (perhaps following 
the reading συνεζ. ἐν, B; 17, al), but 


‘with Christ,’ δ SeXS Syr. al.; 
4 


ἐζωοποίησε κἀκεῖνον καὶ ἡμᾶς, Chrysost. 
The previous statement of the spiritual 
nature of their death, and the similar 
(but, owing to the mention of baptism, 
not wholly parallel) passage, Col. ii. 19, 
seem to show that συνεζ. has reference to 
spiritual life, the life of grace. It is thus 
not necessary to consider the realization 
as future (Theod.), nor even with The- 
ophyl. (ἡμᾶς δυνάμει viv μετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ 
καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ), to limit the present degree 
of it: the aorist has its proper and char- 
acteristic force; what God wrought in 
Christ he wrought ‘ipso facto’ in all 
who are united with Him. Meyer aptly 
cites Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 206, ‘ponitur 
aoristus de re, que quamvis futura sit, 
tamen pro peracta recte censeatur.... 
cum alia re jam facta contineatur.’ It is 
then just possible that cvve¢. may include 
also a future and physical refcrence 
(Rom. viii. 10, 11, see notes ver. 6), but 
that its primary reference is to an actu- 
ally existent and spiritual state, it seems 


48 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. II. 6, 7. 


' a a / ih mies , 6 ᾿ 
συνεζωοποιησεν τῷ Χριστῷ (χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι), καὶ 


΄ \ / ? lal >? t > a? rn 
συνηγειρεν, καὶ TUVEKUSLTEV EV τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν “Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 


Zot. > s ? a bial a > ΄ ΑΝ ἘΠῚ ΄ὔ 
ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένους TO ὑπερβάλλον 


very difficult to deny. Χάριτί 
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι] ‘by grace have ye 
been (and are ye) saved;’ see notes on 
ver. 8. This emphatic mention of grace 
(grace, not works) is to make the readers 
fecl what their own hearts might other- 
wise have caused them to doubt, — the 
real and vital truth, that they have pres- 
ent and actual fellowship with Christ in 
the quickening, — yea, and even in the 
resurrectionary and glorifying power of 
God; see esp. Origen (Cram. Caten.), 
and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 
y. 1 (ad. init.). 

6. cuyHyetpev.... συνεκάδι- 
σεν] ‘He raised us with (Him), He en- 
throned us with (Him). The simple 
meaning of these verbs, and esp. of the 
latter, seems to confine the reference to 
what is future and objective. Still, as 
συνεζωοποίησεν, though primarily spirit- 
ual and present, may have a physical 
and future reference, — so here con- 
versely, a present spiritual resurrection 
and enthronement may also be alluded 
to; as Andrewes truly says, ‘even now 
we sit there in Him, and shall sit with 
Him in the end,’ Serm. vit. in Vol. 1. p. 
115 (A. C. Libr.). This may be referred 
(a) to the close nature of our union with 
Christ, so that His resurrection and ex- 
altation may be said, in Him, to be actu- 
ally ours (κεφαλὴ γὰρ ἡμῶν 6 συνεδρεύων, 
ἀπαρχὴ ἡμῶν 6 συμβασιλεύων, Theod.), 
or, more simply, ()) to that divine effi- 
cacy of the quickening power of God 
which extends itself to issues spiritually 
indeed present (Phil. iii. 20, Rev. i. 6), 
but, strictly speaking, future and contin- 
gent; comp. esp. Rom. viii. 30, where the 
aorists are used with equal significance 
and effect. ἐν Tots ἐπουρανί- 
οι5] ‘in the heavenly places ;’ see notes, 
ch. 1, 8, 20, Bengel has noticed how 


appropriately St. Paul omits the specific 
ev δεξιᾷ, of ch. i. 20; ‘non dicit in dex- 
trad; Christo sua manet excellentia ;’ 
comp. Hst. in loc. ἐν Xp. Ἰησοῦ 
must not be connected simply with ἐν 
τοῖς ἐπουρ. (Peile, Eadie), but with συνή- 
γειρεν and συνεκάϑισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ. ; 
comp. ch.i.38. At first sight the clause 
might seem superfluous, but more atten- 
tively considered, it will be found to 
define the deep, mystical nature of the 
union; God ἤγειρεν, ἐκάϑίσεν, ἡμᾶς, not 
only σὺν Xp., but ἐν Xp.; not only with 
Christ by virtue of our fellowship, but 
in Christ by virtue of our mystical, cen- 
tral, and organic union with Him. On 
the nature of this union, see Hooker, 
Serm. 111. Vol. iii. p. 762 (ed Keble), 
Ebrard, Dogmatik, ὁ 445, Vol. 11. p. 823, 
Martensen, Dogmatik, § 176. obs. 

7. ἵνα ἐνδείξηται) ‘in order that 
He might show forth ;’ divine purpose of 
the gracious acts specified in ver. 5, 6. 
The middle voice ἐνδείξασϑαι is not used 
(either here or Rom. ii. 15, ix. 17, 22, 2 
Cor. viii. 24) with any reference to ‘a 
sample or specimen of what belonged to 
Him’ (Riick., Eadie), but either simply 
implies ‘for Himself,’ 7. 6.,) ‘for His 
glory’ (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 363.1), ‘let be 
seen, (Peile), or, still more probably, is 
used with only that general subjective 
reference, ‘show forth his, ete.’ (the 
‘dynamic’ middle of Kriiger, Sprachil. 
ὁ δῶ. 8. 5; see Kuster de Verb. Med. ὁ 
58, and exx. in Rost. u. Palm. Lez. s. 
y.), which, owing to the following αὐτοῦ, 
can hardly be retained in translation. 
The word occurs eleven times in the N. 
T. (only in St. Paul’s Epp. and Heb.), 
always in the middle voice. In fact, as 
δείκνυμι is but rarely used in the middle 
voice, though in a few formule (see Ast, 
Lex, Plat. s. y.) it involves a middle 


Cuap. II. 8. 


EPHESIANS. 


49 


A a / ’ a > , JE ke ς a 5) ΄ a 
πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ 


᾿Ιησοῦ. 


sense; so ἐνδείκνυμαι, Which is not com- 
mon in the act., except in legal forms, 
may in the middle inyolve little more 
than an active meaning; comp. Donalds. 
Gr. § 484, p. 447. τοῖς αἰῶσιν 
τοῖς ἐπερχ.] ‘to the ages which are 
coming.’ ‘These words have been unduly 
limited. Any special reference to the 
then present and immediately coming 
age (‘per omne vestrum tempus,’ Mor.), 
or to the still future kingdom of Christ, 
the αἰὼν 6 μέλλων, ch. i. 21 (Harl., Olsh.), 
seems precluded respectively by the use 
of the plural and the appended pres. 
part. érepxou. The most simple mean- 
ing appears to be ‘the successively ar- 
riving ages and gencrations from that 
time to the sccond coming of Christ,’ 
‘tempora inde ab apostolicis illis ad 
finem mundi secutura,’ Wolf. Such 
expressions as the present deserve espe- 
cial notice, as they incidentally prove 
how very ill-founded is the popular opin- 
ion adopted by Meyer and others, that 
St. Paul believed the Advent of the 
Lord to be close at hand; see on 1 Thess. 
iv. 15. τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦ- 
το 5] ‘the exceeding riches ;’ an especially 
and studiedly strong expression designed 
to mark the ‘satis superque’ of God’s 
grace in our redemption by Christ ; 
comp. ch. iii. 20,1 Tim. i. 14, and see 
Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197 (A. 
C. Libr.). The neuter πλοῦτος is adopted 
with ABD!FG; 17 67**: Orig. (1), and 
by Lachm., Tisch., and most recent ed- 
itors. ἐν χρηστότητι ep 
ἡμᾶς ἐν Χρ. Ἰησ᾿Ἶ ‘in goodness towards 
us in Christ Jesus ;’ a single compound 
modal clause appended to ἐνδειξ. ; ἐν xp. 
ἐφ᾽ ju. being closely connected (comp. 
Luke vi. 35; the art. is not necessary, 
see notes, ch. i. 6), and defining accu- 
rately the manner in which God displays 
‘the riches of His grace,’ while ἐν X. Ἴ. 


7 


A \ a 
“Th γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως: Kal 


(‘in,’ not ‘through Christ Jesus,’ Auth. ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note) 
specifies, as it were, the ever-blessed 
sphere to which its manifestations are 
confined, and in which alone its opera- 
tions are felt. Well do Calvin and Stier 
call attention to this ‘notanda repetitio 
nominis Christi’ (contrast the melan- 
choly want of appreciation of this in 
De W.), and the reiteration of that eter- 
nal truth which pervades this divine 
epistle, — ‘nur in Christo Jesu das alles, 
und anders nicht,’ Stier, p. 273; see 
notes on ch, i. 3. On the meaning 
of χρηστότης see notes on Gal. ν. 22. 

8. τῇ yap χάριτί[] ‘For by grace ;’ 
confirmatory explanation of the truth 
and justice of the expression τὸ ὑπερβ. 
κι τ. A., by a recurrence to statement 
made parenthetically in ver. 5. The 
article is thus not added merely because 
χάρις ‘expresses an idea which is famil- 
iar, distinctive, and monadic in its na- 
ture’ (1416), but because there a retro- 
spective reference to χάριτι, ver. 5, where 
the noun, being used adverbially, is 
properly anarthrous; see Middleton, 
Greek Art. v. 2, p. 96 (ed. Rose). It 
may be observed that the emphasis rests 
on τῇ χάριτι, the further member διὰ τῆς 
πίστεως being added to define the weighty 
ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: χάρις is the objective, 
operating and instrumental cause of sal- 
vation, πίστις the subjective medium by 
which it is received, the causa apprehen- 
dens, or to use the language of Hooker, 
‘the hand which putteth on Christ to 
justification,’ Serm. 11. 31; comp. Water- 
land, Justif. Vol. v1. p. 22, and a good 
sermon by Sherlock, Vol. 1. p. 323 sq- 
(ed. Oxf.). ἐστε σεσωσμένοιἶ] 
‘ye have been (and are) saved.’ It is 
highly improper to attempt to dilute 
either the normal meaning of the verb 
(‘salyum facio,’ ‘ad cternam yitam per- 


50 


EPHESIANS. 


Crap. II. 9. 


a > 5) ea A \ A Ὁ, 05 2 Ὁ “ ΄ 
τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον: ὅ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις 


duco,’ see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.) or the 
proper force of the tense. The perfect 
indicates ‘actionem plane preteritam, 
que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, 
aut per effectus suos durat’ (Poppo, Progr. 
de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6), and, in a 
word, serves to connect the past and the 
present, while the aorist leaves such a 
connection wholly unnoticed; see esp. 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 56, and compare 
Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 32. 5, p. 342. Thus, 
then, ἐστὲ σεσωσμ. denotes a present 
state as well as a terminated action; for, 
as Eadie justly observes, ‘Salvation is a 
present blessing, though it may not be 
fully realized.’ On the other hand, ἐσώ- 
Snuev (Rom. viii. 24) is not ἐν τοῖς 
σωζομένοις ἐσμέν (Peile), but simply ‘we 
were saved,’ the context (ἐλπίδι) supply- 
διὰ 
τῆς πίστεω 5] ‘through your faith;’ 
subjective medium and condition; see 
above, and compare Hammond, Pract. 
Catech. p. 42 (A.C. Libr.). The modi- 
fication suggested by Bull (‘per fidem 
hic intelligit obedientiam evangelio przs- 
titam cujus fides specialiter sic dicta non 
tantum initium est sed et radix et funda- 
mentum,’ Harm. Apost. τ. 12.8) is here 
not necessary. The contrast with ἐξ 
ἔργων and connection with χάριτι, seem 
to show that πίστις is ‘reliance on the 
divine grace’ (Waterland, Just?f. Vol. 
ΥἹ p. 87), ‘the living capacity,’ as it is 
termed by Olsh., ‘for receiving the pow- 
ers of a higher world;’ xdpis being thus 
identical with imparting, πίστις with re- 
ceiving love; see Olshaus. on Rom. iii. 
21, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 
tole Lachm. omits the article with 
BD!IFG; 4 mss.; Chrys., al.; the ex- 
ternal authority, however [AD°EKL; 
nearly all mss.; Theod., Dam., al.], 
seems slightly in favor of the text. 

καὶ τοῦτο] ‘and this, sc. τὸ σεσωσμ. 
εἶναι (Theoph. 2), not ‘nempe hoe quod 


ing the necessary explanation. 


credidistis,’ Bull, loc. cit., with Chrys., 
Theod., Theoph. 1, al.; see Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 728. Grammat- 
ically considered, καὶ τοῦτο (= καὶ ταῦτα, 
Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. οὗτος, Vol. 11. 
p- 599) might be referred to a verbal 
notion (τὸ πιστεύειν) derived from πίσ- 
τις, but the logical difficulty of such a 
connection with ἐξ ἔργων (parallel and 
explanatory to ἔξ ὑμῶν) seems insupera- 
ble. Still it may be said that the clause 
καὶ τοῦτο K. τ. A. was suggested by the 
mention of the subjective medium πίστις, 
which might be thought to imply some 
independent action on the part of the 
subject (compare Theod.); to prevent 
even this supposition, the Apostle has 
recourse to language still more rigor- 
ously exclusive. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον] 
‘of God is the gift, scil. Θεοῦ δῶρον τὸ 
δῶρον ἐστί; the gen. Θεοῦ (emphatic, on 
account of antithesis to ὑμῶν) being thus 
the predicate, τὺ δῶρον (‘the peculiar 
gift in question,’ τὸ σεσωσμ. εἶναι διὰ τῆς 
πίστ.), the subject of the clause; see 
Riickert zn loc. Harl., Lachm., and De 
W. inclose these words in a parenthesis, 
but certainly without reason ; the slight 
want of connection seems designed to 
add force and emphasis. 

9. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων] ‘not of works;’ 
more exact explanation of the preced- 
ing οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, and thus standing more 
naturally in connection with καὶ τοῦτο 
than with τὸ δῶρον ἐστί (Meyer). The 
sense,- héwever, in either case is the 
The grammatical meaning of ἐξ 
ἔργων is investigated in notes on Gal. ii. 
16; its doctrinal applications are noticed 
by Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 419 
(Bohn). ἵνα μή τις Kavx.] 
‘that no man should boast ;’ purpose of 
God, involved in and included in the 
‘lex suprema’ alluded to in the fore- 


same. 


going οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ; comp. Rom. iii. 27. 
The repression of boasting was not the 


Cuap. IT. 10. 
καυχήσηται 


primary and special object of God’s ap- 
pointment of salvation by grace through 
faith (compare Mackn.), still less was it 
merely the result (Peile), but was a pur- 
pose (ἵνα εὐγνώμονας περὶ τὴν χάριν ποιήσῃ, 
Chrys.), that was necessarily inseparable 
from His gracious plan of man’s salva- 
On the force and use of ἵνα, see 
notes on ch. i. 17. 

10. αὐτοῦ yap x. τ. A.] ‘for we are 
His handiwork, ‘ipsius enim sumus fac- 
tura,’ Vulg.; proof of the foregoing sen- 


tion. 


tences καὶ τοῦτο---δῶρον and οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων; 
the emphatic αὐτοῦ pointing to the posi- 
tive statement that the gift of salvation 
comes from God, and the assertion of 
our being His (spiritual) ποίημα, to the 
negative statement that salvation is not 
ef ὑμῶν, or as further explained, οὐκ ἐξ 
ἔργων. If we are God’s ποίημα, our sal- 
vation, our all must be due to Him 
(comp. Bramhall, Castig. Vol. 1v. 232, 
A. C. Libr.) ; if we are a spiritual ποίημα 
αἰνίττεται, 
Chrys.), spiritually formed and designed 
for good works, our salvation can never 
be ἐξ ἔργων (whether of the natural, 
moral, or ritual law which preceded that 
ἀνάκτισι5).; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 476 note (ed. Bohn). κτισ- 
ϑέντες ἐν Χρ. Ἴη σ.] ‘created in Christ 
Jesus ;’ defining clause, explaining the 
true application and meaning of the pre- 
ceding ποίημα ; compare ver. 15, the ex- 
pression καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. ν. 17, Gal. 
vi. 15, and notes in loc. That the refer- 
ence of ποίημα is not to the physical, and 
that of κτισῶ. to the spiritual creation 
(‘quantum ad substantiam fecit, quan- 
tum ad gratiam condidit,’ Tertull. Mare. 
v.17), but that both refer to the spiritual 
ἀνάκτισις, seems contextually necessary, 
and is asserted by the best ancient (od 
κατὰ τὴν πρώτην λέγει δημιουργίαν, ἀλλὰ 
κατὰ τὴν δευτέραν, Theod., compare 
(ξσαμ.), and accepted by the best mod- 


‘ 2 / 9 σι 
(τὴν ἀναγέννησιν ἐνταῦϑα 


EPHESIANS. 


51 


105.982 α 2 2 , δέ 2 x a 
αὐτου yap EO MEV ποίημα, KTLOJEVTES EV βίστῳ 


ern commentators ; still it does not seem 
improbable that the more general and 
inclusive word ποίημα was designed to 
suggest the analogy (Harl.) between the 
physical creation and the spiritual re-cre- 
ation of man. For a sound sermon on 
this text see Beveridge, Serm. 1v. Vol. 
11. p. 417 sq. (A. C. Libr.). ἐπὶ 
ἔργοις ἀγάϑοι5)] ‘for good works,’ 
ἢ. e., ‘to do good works ;’ ἐπὶ denoting 
the object or purpose for which they 
were created ; see Winer, Gi. § 48. ¢, p. 
351, notes on Gal. v. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 7, 
and exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 
546. On the doctrinal and _ practical 
aspects of the clause, see Beveridge, Serm. 
1. Vol. 11. p. 418. ois προητοί- 
μασεν] ‘which God afore prepared, 


aa} Seo — [ab initio pa- 


ravit] Syr., ‘prius paravit,’ Copt. /£th., 
‘preparavit, Vulg., Clarom. The con- 
struction, meaning, and doctrinal signifi- 
cance of these words has been much dis- 
cussed. We may remark briefly, (1) 
that owing to the absence of the usual 
accus. after προητοίμ. (Isaiah xxviii. 24, 
Wisdom ix. 8, Rom. ix. 23), οἷς cannot 
be ‘the dative of the object,’ ‘for which 
God hath from the first provided,’ Peile, 
but is simply (by the usual attraction) 
for ἅ; Winer, Gir. § 24.1, p. 188, and ὃ 
22 4S obs. ps lids Son Vulos Syn, 
Copt., al., and the majority of commen- 
tators. (2) Προητοίμ. is not neuter 
(Beng., Stier); the simple verb is so 
used Luke ix. 52, 2 Chron. i. 4 (1), but 
there is no evidence of a similar use of 
the compound. Nor is it equivalent (in 
regard to things) with προορίζω (in re- 
gard to persons), Harl., a paraphrastic 
translation rightly condemned by Fritz. 
Rom. ix. 23, ‘aliud est enim parare, ἕτοι- 
μάζειν [to make ἕτοιμα, ἕτ a, see Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. 5. v. ἕτοιμος], aliud definire, 
‘dépiCev, Vol. 11. p. 339. Lastly, neither 


52 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IL. 11. 


᾽ πὰ ὧν » -“ Ὁ Ud e \ “ > > a 
Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς, ois προητοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς iva ἐν αὐτοῖς 


περιπατήσωμεν. 


Remember that ye were 
once aliens, but have now 
been brought nigh. 


here nor Rom. /. 6. must the force of 
πρὸ be neglected; comp. Philo, de Opif. 
§ 25, Vol. 1. p. 18 (ed. Mang.), as 
OikewoTaTw . . . (dw τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πάντα 
rightly translated by 
Fritz., ‘ante paravit quam conderet.’ 
(3) Thus, then, we adhere to the sim- 
plest meaning of the words, using the 
latter part of the clause to explain any 
ambiguity of expression in the former: 
“God, before we were created in Christ, 
made ready for us, pre-arranged, prepared 
a sphere of moral action, or (to use the 
simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent 
that we should walk in it, and not leave 
it; this sphere, this road was ἔργα ἀγαϑά; 
comp. Beveridge, Serm. ἰ. c. p. 428. On 
the important doctrinal statement fairly 
deducible from this text, —‘bona opera 
sequuntur hominem justificatum, non 
precedunt in homine justificando,’ see 
Jackson, Creed, x1. 30. 6. 

11. διό] ‘ Wherefore, ‘since God has 
youchsafed such blessings to you and to 
all of us;’ not in exclusive reference to 


προητοιμάσατο, 


ver. 10, ὅτι ἐκτίσϑημεν ἐπ᾽ ἔργοις ἀγαδοῖς, 
Chrys., nor alone to ver. 4—10 (Meyer), 
but, as the use of ὑμεῖς (compare ver. 
1) suggests, to the whole, or rather to 
the declaratory portion of the foregoing 
paragraph, ver. 1—7; ver. 7—10 being 
an argumentative and explanatory addi- 
tion. On St. Paul’s use of διό, comp. 
notes on (ral. iy. 31. The construc- 
tion, which is not perfectly clear, is com- 
monly explained by the introduction of 
ὄντες before τὰ ἔϑνη (Fuld.), or ἦτε be- 
fore (Syr.), or after (Goth.) ἐν σαρκί. 
This is not necessary; the position of 
ποτὲ (as rightly maintained by Lachm. 
Tisch., with ABD!E; Clarom., Sang., 
Aug., Vulg., al.) seem to suggest that 
τὰ ἔϑνη K. τ. A. is simply in apposition to 


ll \ ΄ Ψ N Jet ΟΣ a, 2 
Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔδνη ἐν 
σαρκί, οἱ Χλεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομέ- 


ὑμεῖς. Ὅτι and ποτὲ are then respec- 
tively resumed by ὅτι and τῷ καιρῷ 
ἐκείνῳ in ver. 12; see Meyer zn loc. 

τὰ €dvn ἐν σαρκί] ‘Gentiles in the 
flesh.” On the correct insertion of the 
article before ἔϑνη (to denote class, cate- 
gory), see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 2. 2, p. 
40 (Rose); and on its equally correct 
omission before ἐν (τὰ ἔν. ἐν o. forming 
only one idea), see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, 
p- 128, notes ch. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom. 
111, 25, Vol. 1. p. 195. Ἔν σαρκὶ is not 
in reference ‘to their natural descent’ 
(Hamm.), nor to their corrupted state 
(οὐκ ἐν πνεύματι, Theoph., ‘ unregenerate 
Gentiles,’ Peile; compare Syr.), but, az 
the use of the word below distinctly sug, 
gests, to the corporeal mark: ‘ preeputium 
profani hominis indicium erat,’ Caly. 
They bore the proof of their Gentilism 
in their flesh and on their bodies. 

of λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία K.TA.] 
‘who are called (contemptuously) the Un- 
circumcision by the so-called Circumcision.’ 
Both ἀκροβ. and wepit. are used as the 
distinctive names or titles of the two 
classes, Gentiles and Jews. On the 
omission of the art. before ἀκροβυστ. (a 
verb ‘yocandi’ having preceded), see 
Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 2, p. 43 (Rose), 
and on the derivation of the word (an 
Alexandrian corruption of ἀκροποσδία), 
Fritz. Rom. ii. 26, Vol. 1. p. 186. 

ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήῆ του ‘wrought 
by hand in the flesh, ‘et est opus manuum 
in carne,’ Syr.; a tertiary predication 
(see Donalds. Gr. § 479 sq., and observe 
the idiomatically exact transl. of Syr.), 
added by the Apostle reflectively rather 
than descriptively ; ‘the circumcision, — 
yes, hand-wrought in the flesh, only a 
visible manual operation on the flesh, 
when it ought to be a secret spiritual 


Cuap. II. 12. 


EPHESIANS. 53 


an “ \ Ω δ 3 - “- 
UNS περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, "" OTL ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ 


process in the heart, only κατατομή, not 
περιτομή ;” comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29, Phil. 
iii. 8, Col. ii. 11. Thus, then, as Calvin 
rightly felt, the Apostle expresses no 
contempt for the outward rite, which he 
himself calls a σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, 
Rom. iv. 11, but only (as the present 
words suggest) at the assumption of 
such a title (observe τῆς λεγομ., not τῶν 
Aeyou.) by a people who had no concep- 
tion of its true and deep significance. 
The Gentiles were called, and were the 
ἀκροβυστία ; the Jews were called, but 
were not truly the περιτομή. 

12. ὅτε ἦτ ε] ‘that ye were ;’ resump- 
tion of the ὅτι in ver. 11, and continua- 
tion of the suspended sentence; see 
notes on ver. 11. τῷ καιρῷ 
ἐκείν ῳ] ‘at that time;’ ‘in your hea- 
then state.” The prep. ἐν (here rightly 
omitted by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD! 
FG; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Aug.; al.; 
Chrys.), though occasionally omitted (2 
Cor. vi. 2 quotation, Gal. vi. 9), is more 
commonly, and indeed more correctly 
inserted in this and similar forms ; com- 
pare Rom. iii. 26, xi. 5, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
2 Thess. ii. 6, and see Wannowski, 
Constr. Abs. 111. 1, p. 88, Madvig, Synt. 
§ 39, and comp. ib. Lat. Gr. § 276. 
ἦτε.... χωρὶς Χριστοῦ) ‘ye were 
-... without Christ ;’ χωρὶς Xp. forming 
a predicate (Syr.; ‘et nesciebatis Chris- 
tum,’ Aith.), not a limiting clause to ἦτε 
ἀπηλλοτρ. (De W., Eadie), —a singu- 
larly harsh construction. The Ephe- 
sians, whom St Paul here views as the 
representatives of Gentilism (Olshaus.), 
were, in their heathen ante-Christian 
state, truly χωρὶς Xp., without the Messiah, 
without the promised Seed (contrast 
Rom. ix. 4 sq.); now, however, ‘eum 
possidetis non minus quam ii quibus 
promissus fuerat,’ Grot. in loc. The two 
following clauses, each of two parts, 
then more exactly elucidate the signifi- 


cance of the expression. On the 
distinction between ἄνευ (‘absence of 
object from subject’) and χωρὶς (‘separa- 
tion of subject from object’), see Tittm., 
Synon. p. 94. This distinction, however, 
does not appear perfectly certain (comp. 
Phil. ii. 14, with 1 Pet. iv. 9), and must, 
at all events, be applied with caution, 
when it is remembered that χωρὶς is used 
forty times in the N. T., and ἄνευ only 
three times, viz., Matt. x. 29, 1 Pet. iii. 
1, iv. 9. Where, in any given writer or 
writers, there is such a marked preference 
for one rather than another of two per- 
fectly simple words, it is well not to be 
hypercritical. ἀπηλλοτρεωμέ. 
νοι «. τ. A.] ‘being aliens, or in a state 
of alienation, from the commonwealth of 
Israel ;’ in opp. to συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων, 
ver. 19. There is a slight difficulty in 
the exact meaning and application of 
the words. Reversing the order, for the 
sake of making the simpler word define 
the more doubtful, we may observe that 
Ἰσραὴλ is clearly the theocratic name 
of the Jewish people, the title which 
marks their re/igious and spiritual, rather 
than their national or political distine- 
tions; see Rom. ix. 6.1 Cor, x. 18, Gal. 
vi. 16. From this it would seem to fol- 
low that πολιτεία, which may be 
either {a) ‘reipublice forma, status, τῶν 
τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων τάξις τις, Aristot. 
Pol. 111. 1.1 (compare 2 Mace. iv. 11, 
νομίμους πολιτείας Opp. tO παρανόμους 
ἐδισμούς, Vill. 17, προγονική πολιτεία), --- 
or (b) ‘jus civitatis’ (compare Acts xxii. 
28, 3 Mace. iii. 21),—or (c) ‘vivendi 
ratio’ (comp. Vulg., Clarom., ‘ conversa- 
tione’—; see Theoph. on ver. 13, and 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 795), is 
here used only in the first sense, and 
with a distinctly spiritual application; so 
/#th.-Platt, Arm., and most modern . 
commentators. The gen. is thus, not 
that of the ‘identical motion,’ 6. g. ἄστυ 


δ4 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. II. 12. 


χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, ἀπηχλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ 


᾿Αϑηνῶν (Harl.), but a simple possessive 
gen., — the ‘reipublice status’ which 
belonged to Israel. ἀπηλλοτρι- 
wuévot, a noticeable and emphatic 
word (οὐκ εἶπε κεχωρισμένοι .. .. πολλὴ 
τῶν ῥημάτων ἡ ἔμφασις πολὺν δεικνῦσα 
τὸν χωρισμόν, Chrys.), seems to hint at 
a state of former unity and fellowship, 
and a lapse or separation (ἀπὸ) from it ; 
comp. ch. iv. 18, Col. 1. 21, Ecclus. xi. 
34, 3 Mace. i. 3, Joseph. Antig. x1. 5. 4, 
and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 295, 
and Schweigh. Polyb. Lex. 5. v. This 
union, though not historically demon- 
strable, is no less spiritually true. Jew 
and Gentile were once under one spirit- 
ual πολιτεία, of which the Jewish was a 
subsequent visible manifestation. The 
Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it 
invalid (Matt. xv. 6, compare Chrys.) ; 
and they parted, only to unite again, 
ἔϑνη καὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ (Acts iv. 27), in 
one act of uttermost rebellion, and vet, 
through the mystery of redeeming Love, 
to remain thereby (ver. 15, 16) united in 
Christ forever. ξένοι τῶν δια- 
ϑη κῶν] ‘strangers from the covenants ;’ 
second and more specializing part of the 
first explanatory clause. The gen. after 
ξένος is not due to any quasi-participial 
power (Eadie), but belongs to the cate- 
gory of the (inverted) possessive gen. 
(Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 49, p. 171), or 
perhaps rather to the gen. of ‘the point 
of view’ (‘extraneos quod ad pactoruam 
promissiones attinet,’ Beza) ; see Scheu- 
erl. Synt. § 18. 8, a, p. 135. The use of 
the plural διαϑῆκαι must not be limited, 
either here or Rom. ix. 4, to the two 
tables of the law (Elsn., Wolf), nor again 
unnecessarily extended to God’s various 
covenant promises to Dayid and the peo- 
ple (comp. De W.), but appears simply 
to refer to the several renewals of the 
covenant with the patriarchs; see esp. 
Wisdom xviii. 22, ὅρκους πατέρων καὶ 


διαϑήκας, 2 Macc. viii. 15, τὰς πρὸς τοὺς 
πατέρας αὐτῶν διαϑήκας ; compare Rom. 
xy. 8. The great Messianic promise 
(Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8; Chrys. 
Theophyl.) was the subject and substra- 
tum of all. ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχον- 
τες] ‘not having hope,’ Auth., ‘spem non 
habentes,’ Vulg., Clarom., comp. Syr. ; 
general consequence of the alienation 
mentioned in the preceding member ; 
not however with any special dependence 
on that clause, scil. ὥστε μὴ ἔχειν ἐλπίδα, 
‘so that you had no (covenanted) ‘hope,’ 
‘spem promissioni respondentem,’ (Ben- 
gel, comp. Harl.),— for (a) the absence 
of the article shows that ἐλπίδα cannot 
here be in any way limited, but is simply 
‘hope’ in its most general meaning, and 
(0) μὴ can be no further pressed than as 
simply referring to the thought and feel- 
ing of the subject introduced by μνημο- 
vevere, ver. 11, ‘having (as you must have 
felt) no hope;’ comp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 
5, p. 428, Herm. Viger, No. 267, and the 
good collection of exx. in Gayler, Par- 
tic. Neg. ch. 1x. p. 275 sq. On the gen- 
eral use in the N. T. of μὴ with partici- 
ples, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15. 

ἄϑεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] ‘without God 
in the world ;’ objective negation (ἀ being 
here equivalent to ov with an adjective, 
Harl.; see, however, Gayler, Partie. Neg. 
p- 85), forming the climax and acecumu- 
lation of the misery involved in χωρὶς 
Χριστοῦ ; they were without church and 
without promise, without hope, and, in 
the profane wicked world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ 
being in contrast to πολιτ. τοῦ “Iop., and 
like it ethical in its reference), — without 
God. *ASeos may be taken either with 
active, neuter, or passive reference, 7. e., 
either denying (see exx. Suicer, Thes. 
s. y.), ignorant of (Gal. iv. 8; ‘nescie- 
batis Deum,’ A®th., ἔρημοι τῆς ϑεογνω- 
σίας, Theod., comp. Clem. Alex, Pro- 
trept. 14), or forsaken by God (Soph. 


=! 


Cnap. 11. 13, 14. 


EPHESIANS. ΓΓ 


ξένοι τῶν διαδηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄδεοι 


> A Ul 13 \ \ τὶ an? lal - lal "“ v 
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ “᾿ νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὑμεῖς ov ποτε ὄντες 


\ » \ 5 Ay 2 eee 4 n xX a Was: τ στον , 
μακρὰν ἐγγὺς Eyer NTE EV TH αἰματι TOU Δριστου. αὑτὸς yap 


(Ed. Rex, 661, ἄϑεος, ἄφιλος) ; the last 
meaning seems best to suit the passive 
tenor of the passage, and to enhance the 
dreariness and gloom of the picture. 
On the religious aspects of heathenism, 
see the good note of Harless in loc. 

13. νυνὶ δέ] ‘ But now;’ in antithe- 
sis 10 τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ, ver. 12, ἐν 
Xp. Ἰησοῦ] ‘in Christ Jesus ;’ promi- 
nent and emphatic; standing in imme- 
diate connection with νυνί (not ἐγενή- 
ϑητε, Mey.), which it both qualifies and 
characterizes, and forming a contrast to 
χωρὶς Xp., ver. 12, The addition of 
᾿Ιησοῦ, far from being an argument 
against such a contrast (Mey.), is, in 
fact, almost confirmatory of it. Such 
an addition was necessary to make the 
circumstances of the contrast fully felt. 
Then, they were xwpls Xp., separate 
from and without part in the Messiah, — 
now they were not only ἐν Χριστῷ but 
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, in a personal Saviour, 
—in One who was no longer their future 
hope, but their present salvation. The 
personal reference is appropriately con- 
tinued by ἐν τῷ αἵματι, --- πού merely 
αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ Xp.; He who poured out 
His blood, Jesus of Nazareth, was truly 
Christ. ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητ εἶ 
‘became nigh, were brought nigh to God’s 
holy and spiritual πολιτεία ; οἱ μακρὰν 
ὄντες τῆς πολιτ. τοῦ Ἴσρ., τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν 
ἐγγὺς ἐγενήϑητε, Gicum. On the pas- 
sive form éyevns. see notes on ch. 11]. 7, 
and on the use of the words μακράν and 
ἐγγὺς in designating Gentiles and Jews 
(comp. the term προσήλυτοι), see the very 
good illustrations of Schoettgen, Hor. 
Heb. Vol. τ. p. 761 sq. and of Wetst. in 
loc. ; comp. also Isaiah lvii. 19, Dan. ix. 
7, and Valck. on Acts. ii. 39 (cited by 
Grinfield, Schol. Hell.). The order 
eyev. ἐγγὺς is adopted by Lachm. with 


AB; mss.; Aug, Vulg., Goth., al. but 
seems due to a mistaken correction of 
the emphatic juxtaposition μακρὰν ἐγγύς. 
ἐν τῷ αἵματι] ‘by the blood;’ ἐν hay- 
ing here appy. its instrumental force ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346. No very 
precise distinction can be drawn between 
this use and διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. ch. i. 7. We 
may perhaps say the latter implies medi- 
ate and more simple, the former, zmma- 
nent instrumentality ; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 
622. 3, Winer, /. c. p. 347 note, and notes 
on 1 Thess. iv. 418. 

14. αὐτὸς γάρ] ‘For He—and 
none other than He;’ confirmatory ex- 
planation of ver. 13, the emphasis rest- 
ing, not on εἰρήνη ἡμῶν (De W.), but, as 
the prominent position of ἐν Xp. Ἴησ. 
and repetition of Χριστοῦ, ver. 13, seem 
decisively to show, — on αὐτός, which is 
thus no mere otiose pronoun (compare 
Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 98), but is used 
with its regular and classical signifi- 
cance; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4, obs. p. 
135, and comp. Herm de Pronom. αὐτός, 
ἘΠ ΟΣ: εἰρήνη ἡμῶν] ‘our 
Peace.’ Though the context, and parti- 
ciple defining 6 ποιήσας scem very dis- 
tinctly to prove that εἰρήνη is here used 
in some degree ‘ per metonymiam ’ (com- 
pare 1 Cor. i. 30, Col. i. 27), and so ina 
sense but little differing from εἰρηνοποιός 
(Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 253), the abstract 
subst still has and admits of a fuller 
and more general application. Not only 
was Christ our ‘ Pacificator,’ but our 
‘Pax,’ the true ch+v ay (Isaiah ix. 5), 
the very essence as well as the cause of 
it; comp. Olsh. in loc. Thus considered, 
εἰρήνη seems to have here its widest 
meaning, — not only peace between Jew 
and Gentile, but also between both and 
God. In ver. 15 the context limits it to 
the former reference; in ver. 17 it reverts 


56 


EPHESIANS. 


Crxe. 11.015. 


2 e 2 / « lal e 4 ἣν » + Δ \ \ , 
ἐστιν ἢ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα EV καὶ τὸ μεσότοίχον 


τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, 


to its present and more inclusive refer- 
ence. τὰ aupotepal ‘both,’ 
Jews and Gentiles; explained by τοὺς 
δύο and τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, ver. 15, 16. 
We have here no ellipsis of γένη, vn 
κι τ. A., but only the abstract and gener- 
alizing neuter; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 
27. δ; p. 160: καί] ‘and,’ se. 
‘namely ;’ the particle having here its 
explanatory force; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, 
Vol. 11. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. obs. 
p- 388, and notes on Phil. iv. 11. 

τὸ μεσότοιχον φραγμοῦ) 
‘the middle wall of the fence or partition,’ 
scil. between Jew and Gentile. The 
genitival relation has been differently 
explained. There is of course no real 
(Pisc.) or virtual (Beza) interchange of 
words for τὸν φρ. Tod μεσοτ.; nor does 
τοῦ φραγμοῦ appear to be here either (a) 
a gen. of the characterizing quality, scil. 
τὸ διαφράσσον, τὸ διατειχίζον (Chrys. 1., 
Harl.; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. v1. 18, 
p- 793, τὸ μεσότοιχον τὸ διορίζον) or () 
a gen. of identity, ‘the middle wall which 
was or formed the φραγμός (Mey.), but 
either (c) a gen. of origin, τὸ ἀπὸ φραγ- 
pov (Chrys. 2), or still more simply (d) 
a common possessive gen., ‘the wall 
which pertained to, belonged to the 
fence,’ — a use of the case which is far 
from uncommon in the N. T., and ad- 
mits of some latitude of application; 
comp. Donalds. Gr. § 454. aa, p. 481 sq. 
The exact reference of the φραγμὸς (372 
Buxtorf Lex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1447) is 
also somewhat difficult to fix, as both 
εἰρήνη and ἔχϑρα (ver. 15) and indeed 
the whole tenor of the passage seem to 
imply something more than the relations 
of Jews and Gentiles to each other, and 
must include the relations of both to 
God; comp. Alf. in loc. If this be so, 
the φραγμὸς would seem to mean the 
Law generally (Zonaras, Ler. p. 1822), 


τοῦ 


5 ΕΣ) ~ A , -“ Ν , 
1 σὴν ἔχϑραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον 


not merely the ceremonial law (Neander, 
Planting, Vol. 1. p. 49, ed. Bohn), nor 
the ‘discrimen prputii’ (Beng.) but 
the whole Mosaic Law, esp. in its aspects 
as a system of separation ; comp. Chrys. 
in loc., who appositely cites Isaiah v. 2. 
Whether there is any direct reference to 
the ἑρκίον δρυφράκτου AwWivov (Joseph. 
Antiq. XV. 11.6) between the courts of 
the Jews and Gentiles (Hamm.) is per- 
haps doubtful; see Meyer. We may 
well admit, however, as indeed the spe- 
cific and so to say localizing φραγμὸς 
seems to suggest, an allusion both to 
this and to the veil which was rent 
(Matth. xxvii. 51) at our Lord’s cruci- 
fixion ; the former illustrating the sepa- 
ration between Jew and Gentile, the lat- 
ter between both and God. As it has 
been well remarked, the temple was, as 
it were, a material embodiment of the 
law, and in its very outward structure 
was a symbol of spiritual distinctions ; 
see Stier in loc. p. 322, 323. 

15. τὴν ἔχϑραν) ‘the enmity ;’ 
‘ponenda hic ὑποστιγμή, Grot.; in ap- 
position to, and a further explanation of 
τὸ μεσ. τοῦ φρ., ‘to wit, the root of the 
enmity (‘parietem, qui est odium,’ ΖΕ 1.) 
between Jew and Gentile, and between 
both and God. The exact reference of 
ἔχϑραν has been greatly debated. That 
it cannot imply exclusively (a) ‘the 
enmity of Jews and Gentiles against 
God’ (Chrys.), seems clear from the 
foregoing context (compare 6 ποιῆσας τὰ 
ἀμφότερα ἕν, ver. 14), in which the en- 
mity between Jew and Gentile is dis- 
tinctly alluded to. That it also cannot 
denote simply (Ὁ) ‘the reciprocal enmity 
of Jew and Gentile’ (Meyer, compare 
Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 253), seems 
also clear from its appositional relation 
to μεσ. τοῦ φρ., from the preceding term 
εἰρήνη, and from the subsequent explana- 


Cuap. II. 15. 


EPHESIANS. 57 


la) > in’ > , ΤᾺ t/ NX ὃ 7 / ’ e a 
τῶν ἐντολῶν EV δόγμασιν KaTapynoas, νῷ TOVS OVO KTLO7 EV εαυτῷ 


tion afforded by τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. κι τ. A. 
The reference then must be to both, sc. 
to the @y3pa which was the result and 
working of the law regarded as a system 
of separation, — the enmity due not only 
to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, 
but also and, as the widening context 
shows, more especially to the alienation 
of both Jew and Gentile from God; 
ἑκατέραν ἔχϑραν καὶ ἑκάτερον μεσότοιχον 
ἔλυσε Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, Phot. ap. 
cum. This, though not distinctly put 
forward in ed. 1, and peremptorily re- 
jected by De W. and Meyer, seems, on 
reconsideration, the only explanation 
that satisfies the strong term ἔχῶρα, and 
the very inclusive context. ἐν τῇ 
σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ] ‘in His crucified flesh ;’ 
comp. Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρ- 
Kos αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦ ϑανάτου. These words 
cannot be connected with τὴν ἔχϑραν 
(Arm., Chrys., Cocc.), as in such a case 
the article could not be dispensed with 
even in the dialect of the N. T., but 
must be joined as a specification of the 
manner, or perhaps rather of the instru- 
ment — either (a) with καταργήσας, to 
which this clause is emphatically pre- 
fixed (ed. 1, De W., Mey.), or perhaps 
more naturally (b) with λύσας (Syr. 
/Eth., Theod., Theoph., G&cum.), to 
which it subjoins an equally emphatic 
specification. Stier (compare Chrys.) 
extends the ref. of σὰρξ to Christ’s incar- 
nate state and the whole tenor of His 
earthly life (‘ Fleisches-lebens’); comp. 
Schulz, Abendm. p. 95 sq. This is doubt- 
ful; the context appears to refer alone 
to His death; compare ver. 13, ἐν τῷ 
αἵματι, ver. 16, διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. On the 
distinction between the σὰρξ and the 
σῶμα (the σὰρξ δοϑεῖσα) of Christ, com- 
pare Liicke on John vi. 51, Vol. 11. 
Ρ. 149 sq. 
évt. ἐν δόγμ.] ‘the law of ordinances 
expressed in decrees,’ scil. ‘the law of 


τὸν νόμον τῶν 


decretory ordinances ;’ compare Col. u. 
14. The Greek commentators join ev 
δόγμ. with karapy., referring δόγματα 
(scil. τὴν πίστιν, Chrys. τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν 
διδασκαλίαν, Theod.) to Christian doc- 
trines; this meaning of δόγμα in the 
N. T. is, however, untenable. Harless 
(comp. Syr.) retains the same construc- 
tion, but regards ἐν δόγμ. as defining the 
sphere in which the action of Christ’s 
death was manifested, ‘on the side of, 
in the matter of decrees.’ This is plaus- 
ible, and much to be preferred to Fritz- 
sche’s expl. ‘nova pracepta stabiliendo ’ 
(Dissert. ad 2 Cor. p. 168); still the 
article {τοῖς δόγμ.) seems indispensable, 
for, as Winer observes (Gr. p. 250, ed. 
5) both the law and the side or aspect 
under which it is viewed are fairly defi- 
nite. We retain, therefore, the ordinary 
explanation, according to which ἐν δόγμ. 
is closely united with τῶν ἐντολῶν, and 
therefore correctly anarthrous ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 20. 2; and’ notes ch.1.15. ‘The 
gen. ἐντολ. thus serves to express the 
contents (Bernhardy. Synt. 111. 45, p. 
163), ἐν δόγμ. the definite mandatory 
form (‘legem imperiosam,’ Erasm.) in 
which the ἐντολαὶ were expressed; see 
Tholuck, Beitrége, p. 93 sq., and esp. 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.10. obs. 1. p. 196 (ed. 
6), but more fully in ed. 5, p. 250. 

ἵνα τοὺς δύο κ. τ. λ.] ‘that He might 
make the two in Himself into one new 
man ;’ purpose of the abrogation ; peace 
between Jew and Gentile by making 
them (οὐκ εἶπε, “μεταβάλῃ᾽ ἵνα δείξῃ τὸ 
ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, Chrys.) in Him- 
self, in His person (not δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, 
Chrys.), into—not merely one man, 
but one new man; ἕνα ἀνήνεγκε ϑαυμασ- 
τόν, αὐτὸς τοῦτο πρῶτον γενόμενος, Chrys. 
Meier’s assertion that καινὸς has here no 
moral significance is obviously untena- 
ble; comp. ch. iv. 24, and-notes in oe. 
The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachm. 


58 


_EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IIL. 16. 


, wo Ν » lal > , 16 \ ᾽ / 
εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνδρωπον, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ 


adopts αὐτῷ with ABF; ten mss.; Pro- 
cop..—a more difficult reading, but 
appy. less strongly attested than ἑαυτῷ 
[DEGKL; bulk of mss.], and not im- 
probably due to the frequent confusion 
between the oblique cases of αὐτὸς and 
those of the reflexive pronoun. 

ποιῶν εἰρήνην} ‘so making peace,’ 
5011. between Jews and Gentiles, and 
between both and God, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 
kal πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Chrys.; contrast τὴν 
ἔχϑραν, ver. 15. It may be observed 
that the aorist is not used (as in ver. 16), 
but the present; the ‘pacificatio’ is not 
mentioned as in modal or causal depend- 
ence on the ‘creatio,’ but simply as 
extending over, and contemporaneous 
with, the whole process of it; compare 
Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 31, 2. a, p. 310. 

16. ἀποκαταλλάξῃ] ‘and 
might reconcile us; parallel purpose to 
the foregoing, and stated second in 
order, though really from the nature of 
the case the first; the divine procedure 
being, as De W. observes, stated regres- 


καὶ 


. ἵνα ἀποκατ. .- -- 
The double compound ἀπο- 
κατ. is used only here and Col, i. 20, 21. 
In both cases ἀπὸ does not simply 
strengthen (6. g. ἀποϑαυμάζω, ἀπεργάζο- 
μαι. Meyer, Eadie), but hints at a res- 
toration to a primal unity, ‘reduxerit in 
unum gregem,’ Caly.; compare ver. 13, 
and Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 7, 8. 
Chrys. gives rather a different and per- 
haps doubtful turn, δεικνὺς ὅτι πρὸ τού- 


sively, ἵνα κτίσῃ... ... 
ἀποκτείνας. 


Tov ἡ ἀνδρωπίνη φύσις εὐκατάλλακτος ἦν, 
οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου. 

The profound dogmatical considerations 
connected with καταλλαγὴ (alike active 
and objective, and passive and subjec- 
tive, comp. 2 Cor. vy. 18 with ib. 20) are 
treated perspicuously by Usteri, Lehrb. 
11. 1. 1, p. 102 sq.; sce also Jackson, 
Creed, Book x. 49. 8, Pearson, zbid. 


Vol. 1. p. 430 sq. (Burton). ἐν 


ἑνὶ σώματι] ‘in one (corporate) body,’ 
scil. in the Church. The reference to 
the human σῶμα τοῦ Xp. (Chrys.) is 
plausible, but on nearer examination not 
tenable. Had this been intended, the 
order (comp. the position of ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ 
αὐτοῦ) would surely have been different, 
if only to prevent this very connection 
of τοὺς ἄμφοτ. and év ody. which their 
present juxtaposition so obviously sug- 
gests. Moreover, the query of B. Crus., 
why Christ’s human body should be 
here designated ὃν σῶμα, has not been 
satisfactorily answered, even by Stier; 
the application of it to the mystical body 
is intelligible and appropriate, comp. ch. 
iv. 4. Ἔν does not thus become equiva- 
lent to evs, but preserves its proper mean- 
ing; they were κτισϑέντας eis ἕνα ἄνῶρ. ; 
thus κτισϑέντας, Christ reconciles them 
both ἐν é σώμ. (scil. ὄντας, Olsh.) to 
God; see Winer, Gr. § 50 5, p. 370. 
amoKktetvas| ‘having slain,’ ἃ. e., ‘after 
He had slain ;’ temporal participle, stand- 
ing in contrast with ποιῶν, ver. 15. The 
use of the particular word has evidently 
been suggested by διὰ σταυροῦ; not 
λύσας, not ἀνελών, but ἀποκτείνας, ‘quia 
crux mortem adfert,’ Grot.; and thus in 
the words, though not the application 
of Chrys., ὥστε μηκέτι αὑτὴν ἀναστῆναι. 
The ἔχϑρα here specified is not merely 
and exclusively the enmity between Jew 
and Gentile (comp. ed. 1), but a/so, as 
in ver. 15, and here even still more dis- 
tinctly and primarily, the enmity be- 
tween both and God ; μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸν 
Θεόν: τὸ yap ἑξῆς τῦυτο δηλοῖ, Chrys. 
comp. Alf. in oc. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in 
it,’ scil. ‘upon it,” Hamm. —not ‘in cor- 
pore suo,’ Bengel; see Col. ii. 15 and 
notes in loc. In FG; Vulg. (‘in semet 
ipso’) Syr.-Philox., and several Latin 
ἘΠ, we find ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; the reading prob- 
ably owes its origin and support to the 
reference ἕν σῶμα to Christ. 


Canela i718. 


EPHESIANS. 59 


\ ’ U >’ roo , a A \ a A > , 
TOUS ἀμφοτέρους εν EVL σώματι τῷ Θεῷ διὰ του σταῦρου, ATTOKTEL- 


i »Μ > > lal 17 ὯΝ bs \ > / τὸ 4 ce! “-“ 
vas τὴν ἔχϑδραν ἐν αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐλὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν 


a > a ΄ ῳ Ψ > Anal 
τοῖς μακρὰν Kal εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. OTL δι’ αὐτοῦ ἔγομεν τὴν 
ἢ μ 


17. καὶ ἐλχὃ ὦν] ‘And having come, 
etc.;’ not ‘and came’ (Auth.), as_ this 
obscures the commencement of the new 
sentence (see Scholef. Hints, p. 100), 
nor ‘and coming’ (Eadie), as the action 
described by ἐλϑὼν is not here contem- 
poraneous with, but prior to that of εὐηγ- 
γελίσατο ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, 
p. 382. This verse seems clearly to 
refer back to ver. 14, αὐτὸς γάρ κ. τ. λ., 
there being, as B. Crus. suggests, a faint 
apposition between Xp. ἐστιν εἰρήνη, ver. 
14, and εὐηγγελ. εἰρήνην, ver. 17; still, as 
ver. 15 and 16 cannot be considered 
parenthetical, the connection is carried 
on by καί, and the verse is linked with 
what immediately precedes. *“EASa@y thus 
following ἀποκτείνας will more naturally 
refer to a spiritual advent (see esp. Acts 
Xxvi. 23), or a mediate advent in the 
person of His Apostles, than to our 
Lord’s preaching when on earth. ; com- 
pare Acts xxvi. 23. The participle 
ἐλϑὼν (no mere redundancy, Raphel, 
Annot. Vol. 11. p. 471) in fact serves to 
give a realistic touch to the whole group 
of clauses; ‘Christ is our peace; yes, 
and He came and by His Spirit and the 
mouths of His Apostles He preached it ;’ 
see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 338. 
εἰρήνην] ‘peace, not only τὴν πρὸς τὸν 
Θεόν (Chrys), but also τὴν πρὸς ἀλλή- 
λους; see notes ver. 14, The repetition 
of εἰρήνην is rightly maintained by Tisch. 
with ABDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., 
Goth., Copt., /&th., Arm., and many 
Ff. It gives an emphasis and solemnity 
to the passage, which is here (though 
denied by Stier, p. 370, comp. Bengel) 
especially appropriate. Meyer compares 
Rom. iii. 31, viii. 15. 

18. ὅτι δι᾽ αὐτοῦ] ‘seeing that 
through Him,’ not merely explanatory, 
‘to wit, that we have,’ (Baumg.), nor yet 


strongly causal, ‘because we have, (Ben- 
gel), but with somewhat more of a de- 
monstrative or confirmatory force, ‘as it 
is a fact that, etc.;’ compare 2 Cor i. 5, 
and see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 7. The 
‘probatio,’ as Calvin observes, is ‘ab 
effectu ;’ the principal moment of 
thought, however, does not rest on ἔχο- 
μεν, on the reality of the possession 
(Harl.), or on any appeal to inward 
experience, ‘for — is it not so?’ (Stier), 
but, as the order suggests, on δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, 
on the matter of fact that it was ‘through 
Him, and none but Him’ that we haye 
this mpocaywyn. For a sound sermon 
on this text, see Sherlock, Serm. xvt. 
Vol. 1. p. 288 sq. (ed. Hughes). 

ἔχομεν ‘we are having,’ present; the 
action is still going on; contrast ἐσχήκα- 
μεν, Rom. vy. 2, where the reference is to 
the period when they became Christians, 
and where, consequently, the mpocaywy) 
is spoken of as a thing past. Thy 
Tpoctaywyny| ‘our introduction, admis- 
sion, ‘quia ipse adduxit,’ /Eth.; not intran- 
sitively, either here or Rom. v. 2, scil. 
‘access,’ Auth, ‘accessum,’ Vulg., ad- 
ventum (dshini), Copt, ‘atgagg,’ Goth., 
—but transitively, ‘adeundi copiam,’ 
‘admissionem,’ the latter being the pri- 
mary and proper meaning of the word ; 
see Meyer on Rom. y. 2, and compare 
(appy-) Xen. Cyrop. vit. 5. 45, τοὺς 
ἐμοὺς φίλους δεομένους προσαγωγῇῆ, ib. τ. 
3. 8, and the various applications of the 
word in Polybius, 6. g. Hist. 1. 48. 2, τῶν 
μηχανημάτων mp., XIV. 10. 9, τῶν dpyd- 
νων. Christ is thus our προσαγωγεὺς to 
the Father; οὐκ εἶπεν “πρόσοδον᾽ ἀλλὰ 
«“προσαγωγήν,᾽ οὐ γὰρ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλ- 
ϑόμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ αὐτοῦ προσήχϑημεν, 
Chrys. on ver. 21; see 1 Pet. iii. 18, tva 
ἡμᾶς mpooayayn τῷ Θεῷ. There may 
possibly be here (less probably, however, 


60 EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. II. 19. 


\ 4 > Ld 3 eX / \ x / 
προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ Πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. 


19.» 


Rom. y. 2) an allusion to the προσαγω- 
γεὺς (‘admissionalis,’ Lampridius, Sever. 
4) at oriental courts, Tholuck, Rom. ἰ. c., 
and Usteri, Lelrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 101; at 
any rate, the supposition does not merit 
the contempt with which it has been 
treated by Riickert. The uses of προσα- 
yoy) are well illustrated by Wakefield, 
in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 86 (ed. 
Valpy), and by Bos, Obs. Mise. 35, p. 
149 sq. “in 
one Spirit, common to Jew and Gentile ;’ 
not for διά, (Chrys.; compare Cicum., 
Calv., al.), but, as usual, ‘united in’ 
(Olsh.); compare 1 Cor. xii. 13. The 
Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital 
sphere or element in which both parties 
have their common προσαγωγὴ to the 
Father. The mention of the three Per- 
sons in the blessed Trinity, with the 
three prepp. διά, ἐν, πρός, is especially 
noticeable and distinct. 

19. apa οὖν] ‘ Accordingly then,’ ‘so 


ἐν ἕνι Πνεύματι] 


’ 


then ;’ ‘rebus ita comparatis igitur ;’ con- 
clusion and consequence from the decla- 
rations of ver. 14—18, with a further 
expansion of the ideas of ver. 13. On 
the use of ἄρα οὖν, see notes on Gal. vi. 
10, and compare Rom. vy. 18, vii. 3, 25, 
vill. 12, ix. 16, 18; in all these cases the 
weaker ratiocinative force of ἄρα is sup- 
ported by the collective οὖν. This union 
of the two particles is not found in clas- 
sical Greek, except in the case of the 
interrogative form apa; see Herm. Viger, 
No. 292. 
“strangers and sojourners;’ ‘peregrini 
atque incole,’ Cic. Offic. 1. 84. The 
two expressions seem to constitute a full 
antithesis to συνπολῖται, and to include 
all who, whether by national and territo- 
rial demarcation, or by the absence of 
civic privileges, were not citizens.’ Πά- 
ροικος then is here (compare Acts vii. 6, 
29, 1 Pet. ii. 11) simply the same as the 


΄ \ jf 
ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι] 


S > / 2) \ / \ / 5 3. 3: \ nr 
ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, ANA ἐστε συνπολῖται 


classical μέτοικος (a form which does not 
occur in the N. T., and only once, Jer. 
xx. 3, in the LXX), and was probably 
its Alexandrian equivalent. It is used 
frequently in the LXX, in eleven pas- 
sages as a translation of 44, and in nine 
of asim: ‘accolas fuisse dicit gentiles 
quatenus multi ex illis morabantur inter 
Judxos,....non tamen iisdem legibus 
aut moribus aut religione utentes,’ Es- 
tius. Harless (after Beng.) regards πάρ. 
as in antithesis to οἰκεῖοι, ξένοι to συνπο- 
Aira, the former relating to domestic, the 
latter to civic privileges; this is plausi- 
ble, —see Lev. xxii. 10 sq., Ecclus. 
Xxix. 26 sq.,—but owing to the fre- 
quent use of πάροικος simply for μέτοικος, 
not completely demonstrable. An 
allusion to proselytes (Whitby) is cer- 
tainly contrary to the context; see ver. 
11 sq. συνπολῖται, though par- 
tially vindicated by Raphelius, Anmnot. 
Vol. 11. p. 472, belongs principally to 
later Greek, e. g. lian, Var. Hist. 111. 
44, Joseph. Antig. x1x. 2. 2; but also 
Eur. Heracl. 826; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
172. The tendency to compound forms 
without an adequate increase of meaning 
is appy. ἃ very distinct characteristic of 
‘fatiscens Greecitas ;’ comp. Thiersch, de 
Pentat. 11. 1, p. 83. With regard 
to the orthography we may observe that 
the form συνπολ. is adopted by Tisch. 
(ed. 7) with AB'CDEFG, and must 
appy. be adopted, as supported by such 
very distinctly preponderating uncial au- 
thority ; see Tisch. Prolegom. p. XLv1t. 

τῶν ἁγίων] ‘the saints:’ not inclu- 
sively the holy ‘of all times and lands’ 
(Eadie), for the mention of the πολιτεία 
τοῦ “Iop., ver. 12, is distinct and specific ; 
nor exclusively the Jews as a nation 
(Hamm.), or the saints of the Old Tes- 
tament (Chrys.), for this the nature of 
the argument seems to preclude, — but, 


Crap. II. 90. 


A \ 5 A A A 
τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι TOD Θεοῦ, 


20. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So CDEFGKL; 
Chrys. (text) omits "Ino. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). 


EPHESIANS. 61 


20 2 L SEN IER 
ἐποικοδομηϑέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Sepe- 


many ν.; Orig. (1) and many Ff.; 
Tisch. inverts the 


order with AB; Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Orig. (2), Theophyl.; Ambrosiast., August. 


(frequently), and many others (Liick., Lachm., Alf.). 


uncial MSS. seems to preponderate. 


the members of that spiritual commu- 
nity in which Jew and Gentile Christians 
were now united and incorporated, and 
to which the external theocracy formed 
a typical and preparatory institution. 
The expression is further heightened 
and defined by οἰκεῖοι rod Θεοῦ. On this 
use of οἰκεῖος, see notes on Gal. vi. 10, 
and for a good sermon on this text, Bev- 
eridge, Serm. xtv1i1. Vol. 11. p. 381 sq. 

20. €motkodoundévres| ‘built up, 
‘supereedificati, Vulg.; the preposition 
being not otiose, but correctly marking 
the super-position, superstructure ; comp. 
1 Cor. iii. 10, 12, 14, Gol. ii. 7. The 
accus. is not used here (as in 1 Cor. iii. 
12) because the idea of rest predominates 
over that of motion or direction. That 
the dat. rather than the gen. of rest is 
here used, can hardly be said to be 
‘purely accidental’ (Meyer), as the for- 
mer denotes absolute and less separable, 
the latter partial and more separable 
super-position ; see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 
483. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. 11. § 68. 41. 1. 
Though this distinction must not be 
over-pressed in the N. T. (see Luke iv. 
29), or even in classical writers (see 
exx. in Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. v. ἐπί, 11. 
Vol. 1. p. 1035), it still appears to have 
been correctly observed by St. Paul. 
The reading ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ch. i. 10 
(Zachm.), which would apparently form 
an exception in this very Ep., is of 
doubtful authority. τῶν ἂἄποσ- 
τόλων καὶ προφητῶν] ‘of the Apos- 
tles and Prophets.’ Two questions of 
some interest present themselves, (1) 
the nature of the gen.; (2) the meaning 
of προφητῶν. With regard to (1) it may 


The evidence of the seven 


be said, that though the gen. of apposi- 
tion (ϑεμέλιος of ἀπόστ. καὶ of προφ., 
Chrys., comp. Theoph., GEcum.) is per- 
fectly tenable on grammatical grounds, 
{compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p. 470), 
and supported by the best ancient com- 
mentators, all exegetical considerations 
seem opposed to it. The Apostles were 
not the foundations (Rev. xxi. 14 is not, 
like the present, a dogmatical passage, 
see Harl.), but laid them ; see 1 Cor. iii. 
10. The gen. will therefore more prob- 
ably be a gen. subject, not however in a 
possessive sense (Calv. 2, Coce., Alf.), as 
this seems tacitly to mix up the ϑεμέλιος 
and the axpoywy. (comp. Jackson, Creed, 
x1. 5. 2), but simply as a gen. of the 
agent or originating cause (Scheul. Synt. 
§ 17. 1, p. 125; see on Thess. i. 6); what 
the Apostles and prophets preached 
formed the ϑεμέλιος ; compare Rom. xv. 
20, Heb. vi. 1. Thus all seems consis- 
tent, and in accordance with the analogy 
of other passages; the doctrine of the 
Apostles, i. e., Christ preached, is the 
SeueAtos; Christ personal (ait. >Ino. 
Xp.) the ἀκρογωνιαῖος ; Christ mystical 
the πλήρωμα; comp. ch. i. 23. (2) 
That the prophets of the New (Grot. al.) 
and not of the Old Testament (Chrys., 
Theod.) are now alluded to, seems here 
rendered highly probable by the order of 
the two classes (arbitrarily inverted by 
Calv., and insufficiently accounted for by 
Theod.), — by the analogous passages, 
ch. iii. 5, iv. 11,—by the known pro- 
phetic gifts in the early Church, 1 Cor. 
xii. 19, al., —and still more by the ap- 
parent nature of the gen. subjecti; see 
above. No great stress can be laid on 


62 EPHESIANS. 


~_ 


Cuap. II. 21. 


aw a 5 " \ a y 5) , δι ἃ 
ῳ των ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, οντος ακΚρογωνίαιοῦυ αὐτου 


wilt la Xi rn 21 93 «e a 2 ὃ \ 7 hy i » 
ησου βίστου, εν @ TAGA οὐἰκοοομῇ συναρμο OYOUMLEV?) αὔξει 


the absence of the article; this only 
shows that the Apostles and Prophets 
were regarded as one class (Winer, Gr. 
§ 19. 4. d, p. 116), not that they were 
identical (Harl.); Sharp’s rule cannot 
be regularly applied to plurals; see 
Middleton, Art. 111. 4. 2, p. 65 (ed. 
Rose). This prominence of ‘ prophets’ 
has been urged by Baur (Paulus. p. 438) 
as a proof of the later and Montanist 
origin of this Ep.; surely δεύτερον mpo- 
φήτας, 1 Cor. xii. 20? is an indisputable 
proof that such a distinct order existed 
in the time of St. Paul. On the nature 
of their office, see notes on ch. iv. 11. 

akpoywviatov| ‘head-corner stone ;’ 
ἀκρογων. scil. λίϑου ; ‘summus angularis 
lapis is dicitur qui, in extremo angulo 
fundamenti positus, duos parietes ex 
diverso venientes conjungit et continet,’ 
Estius ; comp. Psalm exviii. 22, Jer. li. 
26 (Heb.), Isaiah xxviii. 16, Matth. xxi. 
42,1 Pet. ii. 6. In 1 Cor. iii. 11, Christ 
is represented as the ϑεμέλιος ; the image 
is slightly changed, but the idea is the 
same, — Christ is in one sense the sub- 
stratum and in another the binding-stone 
of the building ; ὁ λίϑος 6 ἀκρ. καὶ τοὺς 
τοίχους συνέχει καὶ τοῦς δεμελίους, 
Chrys.; see Suicer, Zhes. s. ν. and Vol. 
11. p. 242. On the doctrinal meaning 
and application of this attribute of 
Christ, see the excellent discussion of 
Jackson, Creed, xt. 51 sq. αὐτοῦ 
"Ino. Χρ.] ‘Jesus Christ Himself, no 
human teachers; the pronoun being ob- 
viously referred not to ϑεμελίῳ (‘angu- 
lari ejus,’ Beng.) or to axpoywy., as pos- 
sibly Vulg. (‘ipso summo_ angulari 
lapide Chr. Jesu’), but to Christ; so 
rightly Auth., Syr., Clarom., and appy. 
Goth.; Copt., Aith., Arm. omit. The 
art. before “Ino. Xp. (the absence of 
which is pressed by Beng.) may not only 
be dispensed with (see Luke xx. 42), 


but would even, as Harl. suggests, be 
here incorrect ; it would strictly then be 
‘He Himself, viz. Christ’ (see Fritz. 
Matth. iii. 4, p. 117), and would imply a 
previous mention of Christ; whereas 
Christ is mentioned for the first time in 
the clause, and as in emphatic contrast 
with those who laid the foundations ; see 
Stier in loc., p. 394. 

21. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ further and 
more specific explanation of the preced- 
ing clause; the pronoun referring, not 
to ἀκρογωνιαίῳ (Cicum.), but to “Inc. 
Xp.; ὁ τὸ πᾶν συνέχων ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, 
Chrysost. 


> 
the building ;’ 12 al> ous [totum 
go τὰ ἜΝ 


wedificium] Syr., ‘omne illud zed.,’ Copt., 
Arm. (with the distinctive n), Syr.-Phil. 
There is here some difficulty owing to 
the omission of the article; the strictly 
grammatical translation of πᾶσα οἰκοδ. 
(scil. ‘every building’) being wholly 
irreconcilable with the context, which 
clearly implies a reference to one single 
building. Nor can it be readily ex- 
plained away; for πᾶσα oix. can never 
mean ‘every part of the building’ 
(Chrys.), nor can oikod. (per se) be 
regarded as implying ‘a church’ (Mey.). 
We seem, therefore, compelled either to 
adopt the reading of ec., and insert ἡ 
[with AC; many mss.; Chrys. (text), 
Theoph., but opp. to BDEFGKL; ma- 
jority of mss.; Clem., al.J], or, with 
more probability, to class οἰκοδομὴ in the 
present case with those numerous nouns 
(see the list in Winer, G'r. § 19), which, 
from referring to what is well known 
and defined (6. g. πᾶσα γῆ, Thucyd. 11. 
43, see Poppo in loc. p. 233) can, like 
proper names, dispense with the art. 
comp. πᾶσα ἐπιστολή, Ignat. Eph. § 12, 
Pearson, Vind. Jgnat. 11. 10. 1, and 
Winer, Gr. § 18. 4. p. 101. It must be 


πᾶσα oikodoun| fall 


Cuap. II. 22. 


EPHESTANS. 


63 


» Ν ee ’ , Φ 9 Le \ id lal lal » 
εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς cuvoixodopeioSe εἰς 


/ lal lal "ἢ Ἁ 
κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι. 


admitted that there appears no other 
equally distinct instance in the N. T. 
(Matth. ii. 8, Luke iv. 18, Acts ii. 36, 
vii. 22, cited by Eadie, are not in point, 
as being either exx. of proper names or 
abstract substt.), nor appy. even in the 
Greek Pentateuch (most of the exx. of 
Thiersch. Pentat. 111. 2, p. 121, admit 
of other explanations) ; still in the pres- 
ent case this partial laxity of usage can 
scarcely be denied. The late and non- 
Attic form οἰκοδομή (Lobeck, Phryn. p- 
421, 487), used both for οἰκοδόμημα and 
οἰκοδόμησις (Rost τι. Palm, Lez. s. y.), is 
here perhaps adopted in preference to 
οἶκος as less distinctly implying the 
notion of a completed building; sce 
Harl, zn loc. συναρμολογου- 
μένη] ‘fitly framed together, Auth., 
“compaginata,’ Jerome; present part.; 
the process was still going on. The 
rare verb συναρμολογ. (= συναρμόζειν) is 
only found here and iv. 16. Wetst. cites 
Anthol. 111. 32. 4, ἡρμολόγησε τάφον. 

αὔ ξ εἰ] ‘groweth;’ the present marking 
not only the actual progress, but the 
normal, perpetual, unconditioned nature 
of the organic increase ; see Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 32. p. 339, 340. This increase 
must undoubtedly be understood as ex- 
tensive (opp. to Harl.) as well as inten- 
sive, and as referring to the enlarge- 
ment and development of the Church, 
as well as to its purity or holiness ; com- 
pare Thiersch, Apostol. Church, p. 52 sq. 
(Transl.). The pres. αὔξω (more com- 
mon in poetry) is not found in the LXX, 
and in the N. T. only here and Col. ii. 
19. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord 
(Jesus Christ),’ the usual meaning of 
Kup. in St. Paul’s Epp.; see Winer, Gr. 
§19.1,p.113. It is difficult to decide 
how these words are to be connected; 
whether (a) with αὔξει, Meyer; (b) with 
ἅγιον, Harl., Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1, p. 249, 


or (6) with ναὸν ἅγιον (comp. Stier), to 
which it is to be regarded as a kind of 
tertiary predicate ; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 
489 sq. Of these, (a) seems tautologous ; 
(Ὁ) gives perhaps a greater prominence 
to the special nature of the holiness than 
the context requires; (6) on the con- 
trary, as the order shows (ναὸν ἅγ., not 
ἅγ. ναόν ; comp. Gersdorf, Beitrége, v. p. 
334 sq.), gives no special prominence to 
the idea of holiness, but defines almost, 
as a further predication of manner, how 
the whole subsists and is realized, — 
‘and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and 
in Him alone;’ comp. notes on ver. 11. 
On this account, and from the harmony 
with ἐν Πνεύματι, ver. 22, (c) is to be 


preferred. 
22. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘in whom ye 
also;’ further specification in ref. to 


those whom the Apostle is addressing ; ἐν 
@ not being temporal (‘dum,’ Syr., but 
not Philox.), nor referring to the more 
remote ναὸν ἐν Kup. (Eadie), but, as in 
ver. 21, to the preceding ἐν Κυρίῳ, and 
kal with its ascensive and slightly con- 
trasting force (comp. notes on Phil. iv. 
12) marking the exalted nature of the 
association in which the Ephesians 
shared ; they also were living stones of 
the great building ; comp. Alf. in loc. 

συνοικοδομεῖσϑ εἶ ‘are builded to- 
gether ;’ clearly not imperative (Caly.), 
as St. Paul is evidently impressing on 
his readers what they are, the mystical 
body they actually belong to, not what 
they ought to be. The force of σὺν ap- 
pears similar to that in συνέκλεισεν, Gal. 
iii. 22 (see notes), and to refer to the close 
and compact union of the component 
parts of the building. Meyer aptly cites 
Philo, de Prem. § 20, Vol. 11. p. 427 
(ed. Mang.), οἰκίαν εὖ συνῳκοδομημένην 
καὶ συνηρμοσμένην. The comma after 
συνοικοδ. { Griesb.) which would refer εἰς 


64 EPHESIANS. 


So I pray for you, believing 11 
ye know how God revealed Σ 


Cuap; Il, 1. 


Τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος 6 δέσμιος 


to me the mystery of the call of the Gentiles, and gave me grace to preach it, that men and angels might learn 
Gou's manifold wisdom. Fuint uot then at my troubles. 


Kato. to αὔξει, does not scem necessary. 
ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the Spirit;’ tertiary 
predication (‘and it is in the Spirit’) 
exactly similar and parallel to ἐν Κυρίῳ, 
ver. 21. Two other translations haye 
been proposed: (a) ‘through the spirit,’ 
Auth., Theophyl., Meyer; (0) ‘in a spir- 
itual manner,’ opp. to ἐν σαρκί ; 1. e., the 
κατοιις. iS πνευματικόν, NOt a ναὸς χειρο- 
ποίητος, Acts vii. 48 (Olsh.). Of these 
(a) violates the apparent parallelism 
with ἐν Kup., and presupposes, in order 
to account for the position of ἐν Πν., an 
emphasis in it which does not seem to 
exist, while again (0) introduces an idea 
not hinted at in the context, and ob- 
scures the reference to the Holy Trinity, 
which here can scarcely be pronounced 
doubtful. It has been urged by Meyer, 
that in the interpr. here adopted, the 
‘continens’ and ‘contentum’ are con- 
founded together; but see Rom. viii. 9, 
and observe that the second ἐν refers 
rather to the act of κατοικεῖν involved in 
the verbal subst.; ‘we are built in Christ, 
form a habitation of God, and are so 
inhabited in and by the influence of the 
Spirit;’ see Alf. in loc., and compare 
Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 105 sq. 
Lastly, no argument in favor of (b) can 
be founded on the absence of the article, 
as Πνεῦμα is used with the same latitude 
as proper names ; see notes on Gal. y. 5, 
p- 83. The opinion also there expressed 
against the distinction of Harless (A. ἰ.), 
between the ‘subjective’ and ‘ objective’ 
Holy Spirit, seems perfectly valid. For 
a practical sermon on this verse (‘the 
essence of religion a disposition to 
God’), see Whichcote, Serm, xtviit. 
Vol. 11. p. 383. 


CuarTer III. 1. τούτου xdpir| 
‘For this reason,’ ‘hujus rei gratia,’ 
Vulg., Clarom.; sc. ‘because ye are so 


called and so built together in Christ. 
The exact meaning of these words will 
of course be modified by the view taken 
of the construction. Out of the many 
explanations of this passage, two deserve 
attention. (a) That of Syr. and Chrys., 
according to which εἰμὲ is supplied after 
ὁ δέσμ. Ἴ. X., 6 δέσμιος being the predi- 
cate, —‘I am the prisoner of the Lord,’ 
the prisoner κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (‘multa enim 
erat istius captivitatis celebritas,’ Beza) ; 
τούτου χάριν then being ‘for the sake of 
this edification of yours,’ ch. ii, 22: (ὁ) 
that of Theodoret, al., according to 
which 6 δέσμιος is in apposition, and the 
construction resumed, ver. 14; τούτου 
χάριν then implying on this account, 
‘because ye are so built together’ (De 
W.), or, more probably, as above, with 
a wider ref. to the whole foregoing sub- 
ject; ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος, καί τινες ἦτε, 
καὶ πῶς ἐκλήϑητε, καὶ ἐπὶ τίσιν ἐκλήϑητε, 
δέομαι καὶ ἱκετεύω τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν 
βεβαιῶσαι ὑμᾶς τῇ πίστει, Theodorct. 
The interpretation ‘per brachylogiam,’ 
according to which, δέσμ. εἰμι is to be 
supplied (Wiggers, Stud. u. Avit. p. 841. 
Ῥ. 431 note, Meyer, ed. 1), is so clearly 
untenable, that Meyer (ed. 2) has now 
given it up in favor of (a). This former 
interpr. deserves consideration, but on 
account of the virtual tautology in tour. 
xdp. and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, --- the analogy of ch. 
iv. 1,— and still more the improbability 
that St. Paul would style himself ὁ δέσ- 
pos, when he so well knew others were 
suffering like himself (1 Cor. iv. 9 sq.), 
the latter is to be preferred; see Winer, 
Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The recent expla- 
nation of Wieseler, which makes ὁ δέσ- 
μιος to be in apposition, but dispenses 
with all assumption of a parenthesis, or 
of an abbreviated structure is not very 
satisfactory or intelligible ; see Chron. 
Synops. p. 446. τοῦ Xp. Ἰησϑδυ) 


Οὐ: IIT. 2) 3. 


EPHESIANS. 


65 


A an? ΤΉ ἃ ἘΠΕῚ ΘΟ Nal a 3 fal 29 ’ ΄ \ 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν eSvaV — ~ εἰγε ἠκούσατε THY 


οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς doSelons μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, 


‘Of Jesus Christ,’ scil. ‘whom Christ 
and His cause have made a prisoner,’ 
Olsh.; gen. of the author or originating 
cause of the captivity ; compare Philem. 
13, δεσμοὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 20, obs. p. 170, Hartung, 
Casus, p. 17, and notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. 
ὑπὲρ tu. τῶν ἐδ νῶν] ‘in behalf of 
you Gentiles ;’ introductory of the subject 
of the Apostle’s calling as an Apostle of 
the Gentiles, and resumed ver. 12. 

2. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘as I may sup- 
pose,’ ‘on the assumption that;’ gentle 
appeal, expressed in a hypothetical form, 
and conveying the hope that his words 
had not been quite forgotten. Evzye is 
properly ‘si quidem, and if resolved, 
‘tum certe si, (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 308); it does not zn ztself imply the 
rectitude of the assumption made (‘ εἴγε 
usurpatur de re quz jure sumpta credi- 
tur,’ Herm. Viger, No. 310), but derives 
that shade of meaning from the context ; 
see notes on Gal. iii. 4. In the present 
case there could be no real doubt ; ‘ neque 
enim ignorare, quod hic dicitur, poterant 
Ephesii, quibus Paulus ipse evangelium 
plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius ; 
comp. ch. iv. 21, 2 Cor. v. 3, Col. i. 23. 
No argument, then, can be fairly de- 
duced from these words against the 
inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians 
(Mill, Prolegom. p. 9, De Wette), nor 
can the hypothetical form be urged as 
implying that the Apostle was personally 
unknown to his readers. Thy 
οἰκονομίαν κ. τ. λ.} ‘the dispensation 
of the grace of God which was given to me, 
etc.’ In this passage two errors must be 
avoided : first, τῆς δοϑείσης must not be 
taken, virtually or expressly (‘ per hypal- 
lagen’), for τὴν δοϑεῖσαν, comp. Col. i. 
25; secondly, no special meanings must 
be assigned either to οἰκονομία or χάρις. 
Oikovoula is not ‘the apostolic office’ 


9 


5 ὅτι 


(Wieseler, Synops. p. 448), but, as in ch. 
i. 10 (see notes), ‘ disposition,’ ‘ dispensa- 
tion ;’ τῆς xapiros being the gen., — not 
subjecti, Gacum. (who reads ἐγνώρισε, as 
in Rec.), but, as the pass. ἐγνωρίσδε 
seems rather to suggest, — objecti, or 
rather the gen. of ‘the point of view,’ 
which serves to complete the conception, 
sc. ‘the dispensation in respect of the 
grace of God, ete.,’ see Scheuerl. Synt. 
§ 18, p. 129, comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, 
p- 175. This is further explained by 
ὅτι κατὰ amor. ver. 33; οἰκονομίαν χάριτός 
There is 
thus no need to depart from the strict 
meaning of χάρις ; it is not ‘munus 
Apostolicum’ (Estius), but the assisting 
and qualifying grace of God for the per- 
formance of it. εἰς ὑμᾶς is well 
translated ‘to youward, Auth.; it is not 
‘in vobis,’ Vulg., or even ‘for you’ (dat. 
commodi), but with the proper force of 
eis (ethical direction), ‘toward you,’ ‘to 
work in you;’ compare ch. i. 19, and 
Winer, Gr. § 49. a. p. 354. 

3. ὅτι x. τ. A.] ‘that by way of revela- 
tion;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. 
§ 584) dependent on the preceding ἠκού- 
cate x. T. A. and explanatory of the 
nature and peculiarity of the οἰκονομ. ; 
the emphasis obviously falling on the 
predication of manner κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. 
These latter words are used in a very 
similar, though not perfectly identical 
manner, Gal. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Cor. vill. 8, 
Gal. iv. 29, see note, Phil. ii. 2); there, 
however, the allusion is rather to the 
norma or rule, here to the manner, ‘by 
way of revelation,’ ‘revelation-wise ;’ 
comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. b, p. 239. 
τὸ μυστήριον) ‘the mystery,’ not of 
redemption generally, nor of St. Paul’s 
special call, but, in accordance with the 
context, of that which is the evident sub- 
ject of the passage, — the admission of 


φησι thy ἀποκάλυψιν, Chrys. 


66 ᾿ EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. IIL. 3, 4. 


κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστήριον, KAY@S προέγραψα 


5 ’ , 4 Ν ὰ 4 ’ , n Ἂς ΄ ie 
ἐν ὀλίγῳ, πρὸς ὃ Suvace ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν 


the Gentiles to fellowship and heirship 
with Christ in common with the Jews; 
μυστήριον γάρ ἐστι τὸ τὰ ἔϑνη ἐξαίφνης 
εἰς μείζονα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εὐγένειαν ἀναγα- 
γεῖν, Chrys. ; see Usteri, Lehrb. p. 252. 
On the use and meaning of the word 
μυστήριον see notes on ch. ν. 82. 

The reading ἐγνώρισε [Rec. with D?E 
KL; many mss.; Eth. (both); Dam., 
Theoph., al.] is distinctly inferior to the 
text [ABCD!FG; many mss.; Syr. 
(both), Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., 
al.] in external authority, and seems to 
have been an intended emendation of 
structure. προέγραψ αἹ ‘have 
afore written, Hamm.; ἃ translation 
here preferable to the aoristic ‘afore 
wrote’ (Auth.), as serving better to de- 
fine the reference, as not being to any 
earlier (Chrys., but not Theod., The- 
oph.), but simply to the present Epistle ; 
comp. ch. 1. 9 sq., ii. 13 sq. The clause 
seems introduced to confirm the readers, 
the ref. being, as ver. 4 clearly shows, 
neither to κατὰ ἀποκαλ. nor to μυστήρ. 
but to ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστ. ; it was 
the fact of this knowledge having been 
imparted, not the manner in which he 
attained it, or the precise nature of it 
that the Apostle desires to specify and 
reiterate. To enclose this clause and 
ver. 4 in a parenthesis ( Wetst., Griesb.), 
is thus obviously unsatisfactory. ἐν 


Oo. > 
ὀλίγῳ] 1Δ..5.5.}5 [in paucis] Syr., 
Ὁ Δ 


‘in brevi,’ Vulg., διὰ βραχέων, Chrys. ; 
see Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 293. The 
meaning, ‘a short time before,’ ‘just 
now,’ (comp. Theod.) is distinctly un- 
tenable: this would be πρὸ ὀλίγου: ἐν 
ὀλίγῳ in a temporal sense can only 
mean, as Mey. and Harl. correctly ob- 
serve, ‘in a short space of time:’ see 
Acts xxvi. 28, where, howeyer, as in the 
present case, the meaning, ‘briefly,’ 


‘with a compendious form of argument’ 
(not ‘lightly,’ Alf.; see Meyer in loc.), 
is appy. more tenable. Stier alludes to 
the common epistolary expression, ‘a 
few lines.’ 

4. πρὸς 8] ‘in accordance to which,’ 
‘agreeably to which,’ scil. the mpoyeypap- 
μένον, not ἐν ὀλίγω (Kypke): from what 
the Apostle had written in this Epistle 
his insight into the mystery of Christ 
was to be inferred by his readers; ‘ex 
ungue leonem,’ Beng. The remark of 
Harl. that πρὸς (with ace.) in its ethical 
use denotes the relation of conformity 
to, seems correct and comprehensive. 
Whether this be in reference to cause 
and effect (‘owing to,’ Herod. ry. 161, 
comp. Matth. xix. 8; see exx. in Palm 
u.;, Rost, Lex. Ss» ¥.-b., aa, Vol. 1a 
1157), design and execution (‘in order 
to,’ 1 Cor. xii. 7, al.), simple comparison 
(Rom. viii. 18; Herod. 111. 34, cited by 
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, or, as 
here rule and measure (see notes on Gal. 
ii. 14) must be determined by the con- 
text. If we add to these the indication 
of simple mental direction (‘in regard 
to,’ ‘in reference to,’ Heb. i. 7, see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. ἢ. p. 360, comp. notes 
on ch. iv. 12), the ethical uses of πρὸς 
with ace. will be sufficiently delineated. 
For a good and comprehensive list of 
exx. see Rost and Palm, Lez. 5. v. Vol. 
1. Ὁ» 1150. 5η: 
ἀναγιν. νοῆσαι] ‘you can while read- 
ing, or as you read, perceive ;’ the tem- 
poral participle expressing the contem- 
porary act, comp. Donalds. Gr. § 576. 
The aor. νοῆσαι is appy. here used as 
marking, not exactly the sudden and 
transitory nature of the act (AIf.; con- 
trast Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383), but 
the distinct manifestations of it, the 
single act being regarded, as it were, 
the commencement of a continuity ; see 


δύνασϑε 


πὰρ. III. 5. 


EPHESIANS. 


67 


> a 7, a ews Bade heck im 5) 3 
μου ἐν τῷ μυστηριῳ του “Χριστοῦ, ο ετέραις YEVEALS οὐκ EYVO- 


ρίσϑη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀν) ρώπων, ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφϑη τοῖς ἁγίοις 


esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 173. 4, Donalds. 
Gr. § 427. d. The student must be 
careful in pressing the aor. in this mood, 
as so much depends on the context and 
the mode in which the action is contem- 
plated by the writer; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. ἰ. c., Kriiger, Sprachl. 53. 6. 9, and 
observe that δύναμαι and similar verbs, 
ἔχω, δυνατός εἶμι, SéAw, are often idi- 
omatically followed by the aor. rather 
than the present; see Winer, § 44. 7, 
p. 298, and the note of Matzner in his 
ed. of Antiph. p. 153 sq. τὴν 
σύνεσίν μον κ. τ. λ.} ‘my insight, my 
understanding in the mystery of Christ.’ 
The article is not needed before the 
prep., as σύνεσις ἐν τῷ μυστ. forms a 
single composite idea; comp. 3 Esdr. 1. 
3, τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Κυρίου 
(Harl.), and see notes on ch. i. 15. 
The formula, συνιέναι ἐν (and εἰς) oc- 
curs several times in the LXX, 2 Chron. 
xxxiv. 12, Nehem. xiii. 7, al., and thus 
justifies the omission of the article with 
the derivative subst.: see Winer, § 20. 
2, p. 123. The distinction between 
συνιέναι (‘to understand,’ ‘verstehn’), 
and νοεῖν (‘to perceive,’ ‘merken’), is 
noticed by Tittmann, Synon. p. 191. 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ is commonly taken as 
a gen. objecti, ‘the mystery relating to 
Christ,’ se. of which His reconciliation, 
and union of the Jews and Gentiles in 
Himself formed the subject; compare 
Theophyl. in loc. By comparing, how- 
ever, the somewhat difficult passage, 
Col. i. 27, tov pvornp.... 
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, it would certainly seem 
that it is rather a species of gen. materic, 
or of identity: ‘Christus selbst ist das 
Concretum des gottlichen Geheimnisses,’ 
Meyer; comp. Stier zn loc., and see exx. 
in Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83. 
5. 6] ‘which,’ scil. which μυστήριον 
τοῦ Xp. ver. 4; there being no parenthe- 


. ὅς ἐστιν 


sis (see above), but that simple linked 
connection by means of relatives which 
is so characteristic of this Epistle. 


« / a « 
ἑτέραις yevears] 


in other genera- 
tions, ages,’ ‘anparaim aldim,’ Goth. ; 
dative of time ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 9, 
p- 195; comp. notes, ch. ii. 11. Meyer, 
maintaining the usual meaning of γενεά, 
explains the dat. as a simple dat. com- 
modi, and τοῖς υἱοῖς as a further explana- 
tion. ‘This is unnecessary precision, as 
in Col. i. 26, ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν 
γενεῶν, the less usual meaning, ‘ age,’ 
can scarcely be denied: see Acts xiv. 
16, and, probably, Luke i. 50. In the 
LXX, γενεὰ is the usual translation of 
sis, which certainly (see Gesen. Lex. 
s. v.), admits both meanings. In one 
instance, Isaiah xxiv. 22, even m7 
is so translated. The insertion of ἐν 
before ἑτέραις (Rec.) rests only on the 
authority of a few mss.; Copt., and 
Syr.-Phil. 
ἂν δ ρ.] ‘to the sons of men;’ ‘latissima 
appellatio, causam exprimens ignoran- 
tix, ortum naturalem;’ so Beng., who, 
however, proceeds less felicitously to 
refer the expression to the ancient 
prophets. ‘This is neither fairly demon- 
strable from the use of f=s—43, (Ezek. 
vii. 1, al.), nor by any means consonant 
with the present passage, where no com- 
parison is instituted between the prophets 
of the Old and of the New Test., but 
between the times,—the then and the 
The expression, viol τῶν ἀνῶρ. 
seems ehosen to make the contrast with 
the ἅγιοι ἀπόστ. αὐτοῦ καὶ προφ., the 
ον 91 Ἰθευΐ-: 
xxxiii. 1) more fully felt. ὦ 95] 
Observe the comparison which the par- 
ticle introduces and suggests : ἐγνωρίσϑη 
μὲν τοῖς πάλαι προφήταις, GAN οὐχ ws νῦν" 


τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν 


now. 


Θεοῦ ἄνϑρωποι 


ov γὰρ τὰ πράγματα εἶδον [comp. 1 John 
i. 1] ἀλλὰ τοὺς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων προέ- 


68 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. III. 6. 


- \ 
ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν Πνεύματι, 5 εἶναι, τὰ ἔδνη 


ραψαν λόγους, Theodoret. τοῖς 
ἁγίοις ἀποστ.] ‘to [His holy Apostles.’ 
The epithet ἁγίοις has been very unrea- 
sonably urged by De Wette as a mark 
of the post-apostolic age of the epistle. 
It is obviously used to support and 
strengthen the antithesis to the viol τῶν 
ἄνδρ. The Apostles were ἅγιοι in their 
office as God’s chosen messengers, ἅγιοι 
in their personal character as the in- 
spired preachers of Christ; compare 
Luke i. 70, Acts ili. 21, 2 Pet. i. 21 
(Lachm.), where the prophets are so 
designated. The meaning of προφῆται 
is here the same as in ch. ii. 20, the 
‘N. T. prophets ;” see notes on ch. iv. 
ΕἸ. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘by the 
Spirit;’? Auth., Arm. (instrumental 
case) ; Holy Agent by whom the ἀποκά- 
Avis was given, ἐν having here more of 
its instrumental force; εἰ μὴ yap τὸ 
Πνεῦμα ἐδίδαξε τὸν Πέτρον, οὐκ ἂν τὸν 
ἐωνικὸν Κορνήλιον μετὰ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ 
παρεδέξατο, Theophyl.; comp. Chrys., 
who certainly appears erroneously cited 
(De W., Eadie) as joining ἐν Mv. with 
mpop., ‘prophets in the Spirit,’ sc. Seo- 
πνεύστους-. This latter construction, 
though fairly admissible (comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), is open to the deci- 
sive exegetical objection that it is an 
‘idem per idem;’ if prophets were not 
divinely inspired, ‘ prophets in the Spirit,’ 
the name would be misapplied. On the 
omission of the art. see ch. ii. 22. The 
traces of Montanism which Baur 
(Paulus, p. 440) finds in these words, 
are so purely imaginary as not to de- 
serve serious notice or confutation. 

6. εἶναι τὰ Edy] ‘to wit, that the 
Gentiles are,’ ‘esse gentes,’ Clarom., 
Vulg., Goth., not ‘should be,’ Auth., 
Eadie, the objective infin. here expres- 
sing not the design but the subject and 
purport of the mystery: τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ 
μυστήριον τὸ εἶναι τὰ ἔϑνη συγκληρονόμα 


τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, καὶ συμμέ- 
τοχα, Theoph.; compare Donalds. Gr. 
§ 584. συνκληρονόμα k.T.A.] 
‘fellow-heirs and fellow-members, and fel- 
low-partakers of the promise.’ It does not 
seem correct to regard these three epi- 
thets, on the one hand, as merely cumu- 
lative and oratorical, or on the other as 
studiedly mystical and significant (com- 
pare Stier, who here finds a special allu- 
sion to the Trinity). The general fact 
of the συνκληρονομία is reasserted, in 
accordance with the Apostle’s previous 
expressions, both in its outward and in- 
ward relations. The Gentiles were fel- 
low-heirs with the believing Jews in the 
most unrestricted sense; they belonged 
to the same corporate body, the faithful ; 
they shared to the full in the same spir- 
itual blessings, the ἐπαγγελία ; see Theod. 
in loc. The compounds σύνσωμος (‘con- 
corporalis,’ see Suicer, 765. s. ν. Vol. 
11. 1191) and συνμέτοχος (‘ comparti- 
ceps,’ ch. v. 7) appear to have been both 
formed by St. Paul, being only found in 
this Ep. and the KEcclesiast. writers. 
The verb συμμετέχω occurs in classical 
Greek, 6. g. Eurip. Suppl. 648, Plato, 
Theet. 181 c, Xenoph. Anab. vit. 8. 17. 
Tisch. (ed. 7) now adopts the forms σὺν- 
kAnp. and συνσωμ. with AB'DEFG, and 
συνμετ. with ABICDIFG, — appy. on 
right principles ; see Prolegom. p. XLVII. 
τῆς ἐπαγγελία] ‘the promise of sal- 
vation,’ not merely of the Holy Spirit 
(Eadie) ; for though the promise of the 
Spirit was one of the prominent gifts of 
the New Covenant (Gal. iii. 14), it 
would here be not only too restricted, 
but even scarcely consonant with the 
foregoing συνκληρονόμα. The addi- 
tion of αὐτοῦ after τῆς ἐπαγγ. (Mec.) is 
fairly supported [D?D®°EFGKL; many 
mss.; Vulg. (some edd.), Goth., Syr.- 
Philox. ; Theod., al.], but not found in 
ABCD!; mss.; Clarom., Sang., Amit., 


Cuap. III. 7, 8. 


EPHESIANS. 


69 


, \ ,ὔ A 
συνκληρονόμα καὶ σύνσωμα Kal συνμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν 


Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 


“ov ἐγενήδην διάκονος κατὰ 


τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοϑεῖσάν μοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνέρ- 


n / ? la $3 \ a 3 / Hf 
γείαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. * ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων 


Copt., Syr., and thus rightly rejected by 
the best recent editors. ἐν Xp. 
and διὰ τοῦ evayy. both refer to the 
three foregoing epithets. The former 
points to the objective ground of the 
salvation, Him zx whom it centred, the 
latter the medium by which it was to be 
subjectively applied (Mey.): τῷ πεμφϑῆ- 
vat καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς, καὶ τῷ πιστεῦσαι" οὐ 
γὰρ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
Chrysost. On the distinction between 
ἐν and διὰ in the same sentence, see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 347 note, and 
comp. ch. i. 7. The reading of 
Rec. ἐν τῷ Xp. [DEFGKL; most mss. ; 
Clarom., Sang., Boern.; Orig. (3), al.] 
is rejected by most recent editors in 
favor of the text which is found in 
ABC; some mss., and supported by 
Aug., Vulg., Goth., Copt., al. 

7. éyevhdsny] “1 became;’ this less 
usual form is rightly adopted by Tisch., 
Lachm., al., on the authority of ABD} 
FG against CD?EKL, which read ἐγενό- 
unv. The passive form, however, implies 
no corresponding difference of meaning 
(Riick., Waddie); γίγνομαι in the Doric 
dialect was a deponent pass.; ἐγενήϑην 
was thus used in it for ἐγενόμην, and 
from thence occasionally crept into the 
language of later writers ; see Buttmann, 
Irreg. Verbs, 5. v. TEN—, Lobeck, Phryn. 
p- 108, 109, and comp. notes on Col. iv. 
11. διάκονο 5] ‘a minister,’ Col. 
i. 23, 2 Cor. iii. 6. Meyer rightly im- 
pugns the distinction of Harless, that 
didk. points more to activity in relation 
to the service, ὑπηρέτης to activity in rela- 
tion to the master. ‘This certainly cannot 
be substantiated by the exx. in the N. 
Teisee! 2) Cor. vin 4,.xi6 95. 1 Tim, ive ας 
where did. is simply used in reference to 


the master, and Luke i. 2, where ὑπηρέτης 
refers to the service. On the derivation 
of bide. (διήκω), see Buttm. Lezil. s. v. 
διάκτορος, ὃ 40.3; for its more remote 
affinities [AK-ATK- ‘hbend’], Benfey, 
Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 22. 
dwp. τῆς xXapiTos| ‘the gift of the 
grace ;” gen. of identity; that of which 
the gift (the apostolic office, the office of 
preaching to the Gentiles) consisted ; 
compare Plato, Leg. vi11. 844, διττὰς 
δωρεὰς χάριτος, and see Scheuerl. Synt. 
δ 12, 1, py 82; Winer, Gr: § 50. 8, p: 
470. τὴν δοδϑεῖσάν μοι] ‘which 
was given to me;’ not a mere reiteration 
of the preceding δωρεάν, but associated 
closely with the following words which 
detine the manner of the δόσις. The 
reading τῆς δοϑείσης (Lachm.) is sup- 
ported by strong external authority 
[ABCD!FG; 10 mss.; Vulg. Clarom., 
Copt.] but appears very likely to have 
arisen from a conformation to ver. 2. 
The accus. is found in D?EKL; major- 
ity of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., al.; 
Chrys., Theod.. al., and is adopted by 
Tisch., and most recent critics. 


Thy 


κατὰ τὴν evepy.| ‘according to the 
working or operation of his power ;’ defin- 
ing preposit. clause, dependent, not on 
ἐγενόμην (Mey.) but on τὴν dodeiody μοι», 
which would otherwise seem an unneces- 
sary addition: ‘the mention of the power 
of God is founded on the circumstance 
that St. Paul sees in his change of heart, 
from a foe toa friend of Christ, an act 
of omnipotence,’ Olsh. On the proper 
force of κατά, sce notes, ch. i. 19. 

8. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ)ὔ ‘To 
me who am less than the least,’ Auth.; a 
most felicitous translation. No addition 
was required to the former period ; the 


70 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. III. 5, 


δ. ἡ ς ΄ὔ ev ’ a mm > ie ἂν 3 / 
ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, ἐν τοῖς ἔδνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασδαι τὸ aveEvyviac- 


τον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 


great Apostle, however, so truly, so ear- 
nestly felt his own weakness and nothing- 
ness (εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι, 2 Cor. xv. 15), 
that the mention of God’s grace towards 
him awakens within, by the forcible con- 
trast it suggests, not only the remem- 
brance of his former persecutions of the 
church (1 Cor. xv. 10), but of his own 
sinful nature (1 Tim. i. 15, εἰμί, not ἦν), 
and unworthiness for so high an office. 
Calvin and Harl. here expound with far 
more vitality than Est., who refers this 
ταπεινοφροσύνης ὑπερβολὴν (Chrysost.) 
solely to the memory of his former per- 
secutions. It is perfectly incredible how, 
in such passages as these, which reveal 
the truest depths of Christian experience, 
Baur (Paulus, p. 447) can only see con- 
tradictions and arguments against the 
apostolic origin of the Epistle. On the 
form ἐλαχιστ. see Winer, Gr. § 11. 2, p. 
65, and the exx. collected by Wetst. in 
luc., out of which, however, remove 
Thucyd. 1v. 118, as the true reading is 
κάλλιον. ἐν τοῖς ἔδϑν. εὐαγ- 
γὙελ.] ‘to preach among the Gentiles ;’ 
explanatory and partly appositional 
clause, the emphatic ἐν τοῖς ἔῶνεσιν 
marking the Apostle’s distinctive sphere 
of action, and, the inf. defining the pre- 
ceding 7 χάρις αὕτη ; see Kritger, Sprachl. 
§ 57. 10. 6, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 192, 
Winer, Gr. ὁ 44.1, p. 284. To make 
this clause dependent on δωρεάν, ver. 7, 
and to regard ἐμοὶ --- αὕτη as parenthet- 
ical (Harl.) seems a very improbable 
connection, and is required neither by 
grammar nor by the tenor of the pas- 
sage. Lachm. omits ἐν with ABC ; 
3 mss.; Copt. (A/f.), but the authority 
for retaining it [DEFGKL; nearly all 
mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Vulgate, 
Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al.] seems 
fairly to preponderate. πλοῦτος 
τοῦ Χρ.] ‘riches of Christ, i. e. the 


9 \ » ΄, ΄ὔ e ’ / 
Kab φωτίσαι παντὰᾶς τις ἢ οὐκονομια 


exhaustless blessings of salvation ; com- 
pare Rom. xi. 53. It is ἀνεξιχνίαστον 
("En Ws Job v. 9, ix. 10) both in its 
nature, extent, and application. 

9. Kar 


φωτίσαι πάντας) ‘and 


Y aaa 
to illuminate all, make all see ;’ santo 


o> 
#12 [et in lucem proferam omni 


homini] Syr.; expansion of the forego- 
ing clause as to the process (the Apostle 
had grace given not only outwardly to 
preach the Gospel, but inwardly to en- 
lighten), though appy. not as to the per- 
sons (ed. 1); as owing to its unemphatic 
position the πάντας can scarcely be re- 
garded more inclusive than the foregoing 
τὰ ἐδνη; see Meyer. The significant 
verb φωτίσαι must not be explained away 
as synonymous with διδάξαι (De W.); 
this derivative meaning is found in the 
LXX, see Judges xiii. 8 (Alex.), 2 Kings 
iv. 2, xvii. 27, 28, but not in the N. T., 
— where the reference is always to light, 
either physical (Luke x., xi., 36), meta- 
phorical (1 Cor. iv. 5), or spiritual (Heb. 
vi. 4, al.); comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét, 
Iv. 15, Vol. 11. p. 156, note. Christ is 
properly ὁ φωτίζων (John i.9); His apos- 
tles illuminate ‘participatione ac minis- 
terio,’ Estius. On the use of the word 
in ref. to baptism, see Suicer, Thesaur. 
Vol. 11. p. 1491. Lachm. brackets 
πάντας as being omitted by A; some 
mss.; Cyr., Hill., al., but without suffi- 
cient authority. 
μυστ.] ‘the dispensation of the mystery,’ 
‘dispositio sacramenti absconditi,’ Cla- 
rom., — 5011. the dispensation (arrange- 
ment, regulation) of the mystery (the 
union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, 
ver. 6), which was to be humbly traced 
and acknowledged in the fact of its hay- 
ing secretly existed in the primal coun- 
sels of God, and now having been re- 


οἰκονομία τοῦ 


Cuap. III. 10. " 


EPHESIANS. 


TL 


a 4 La 3 4 lal ο “ 
τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ 


A Ν , ! ivf a “ rn a = 
τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, ” ἵνα γνωρισ'δῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς 


vealed to the heavenly powers by means 
of the Church. On the meaning of 
οἰκονομία, see notes on ch. i. 10. 

The reading κοινωνία (Rec.) has only 
the support of cursive mss., and is a 
mere explanatory gloss. ᾿ἀπὸ 
τῶν αἰώνων] ‘from the ages,’ scil. 
“since the ages of the world began ;’ comp. 
Ἐ 515, Gen. vi. 4: terminus a quo of the 
concealment. The counsel itself was 
formed mpd τῶν αἰώνων, Cor. il. 7; 
the concealment of it dated ἀπὸ τῶν 
aidvewv,—from the commencement of 
the ages when intelligent beings, from 
whom it could be concealed, were called 
into existence; compare Rom. xvi. 25, 
μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου. 
τῳ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι] ‘who cre- 
ated all things,’ ‘qui omnia creavit,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., certainly not, ‘quippe 
qui omnia creavit,’ Meyer, —a transla- 
tion which would require the absence of 
the article; compare notes on ch. 1. 12, 
and see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 306. The 
exact reason for this particular designa- 
tion being here appended to τῷ Θεῷ has 
been somewhat differently estimated. 
The most simple explanation would 
seem to be that it is added to enhance 
the idea of God’s omnipotence; the 
emphatic position of τὰ πάντα (‘nulla 
re prorsus excepta,’ Est.) being designed 
to give to the idea its widest extent and 
application, — ‘who created all things,’ 
and so, with His undoubted prerogative 
of sovereign and creative power, or- 
dained the very μυστήριον itself. A 
reference to God’s 
more suitably have justified the conceal- 
ment, the reference to His omnipotence 


omniscience would 


more convincingly vindicates the εὐδοκία 
according to which it was included in, 
and formed part of his primal counsels. 
It is not necessary to limit τὰ πάντα, but 
the tense seems to show that it is rather 


to the physical (οὐδὲν yap χωρὶς αὐτοῦ 
πεποίηκε, Chrys.), than to the spiritual 
creation (Calv.) 
perhaps suggested by the longer reading 
κτίσ. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xp. [Ree. with D®EJK ; 
most Syr-Phil. with asterisk ; 
Chrys., Theod., al.], which, however, is 
rightly rejected by most recent editors 
with ABCDIFG; a few mss.; Syr., 
Vulg., Goth., al; Basil, Cyr., and 
many Ff. 

10. ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ νῦν] ‘in order 


This latter view was 


MSs. ; 


that there might be made known now ;” 
divine object and purpose,—not of 
either the acts specified in the partici- 
pial clauses immediately preceding, for 
neither the concealment of the mystery 
(Meyer), nor the past act of material 
creation (Harl.) could be properly said 
to have had as its purpose and design 
the present (viv opp. to ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων) 
exhibition of God’s wisdom to angels, 
—but of the general dispensation de- 
scribed in the two foregoing verses. 
The Apostle (as Olsh. well remarks), 
in contrasting the greatness of his call 
with the nothingness of his personal self, 
pursues the theme of his labor through 
all its stages: the ἐλαχιστότερος has 
grace given him evayy. k. 7. Δ.» nay 
more, φωτίσαι πάντας x.7T.A., and that, 
too, that heaven might see and acknowl- 
edge the πολυποίκιλος σοφία of God; 
see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 518 
(Bohn). ταῖς ἀρχαῖς K.T.A.J 
‘to the principalities and to the powers in 
the heavenly regions,’ sc. to the good angels 
and intelligences ; a ref. to both classes 
(Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. τ. p. 315) being 
excluded, not so much by ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρ. 
(Alf., for compare ch. vi. 12), as by the 
general tenor of the passage ; evil angels 
more naturally recognize the power, good 
angels the wisdom of God. On the term 
ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσ. (here to add weight to 


12 


EPHESIANS. 3: 


Cuap. III. 11. 


A \ A 3 t e 
ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος 


σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ, 


the enumeration each with the art.), see 
notes ch. i. 21, and on τοῖς ἐπουρ. notes 
on ch. i. 3, 20. διὰ τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας] ‘through the Church,’ scil. ‘by 
means of,’ the Church; διὰ τῆς περὶ 
τῆν ἐκκλησίαν οἰκονομίας, Theod. The 
Church, the community of believers in 
Christ (Col. i. 24), was the means by 
which these ministering spirits were to 
behold and contemplate God’s wisdom : 
comp. Calvin, in loc.,— ‘ecclesia ... 
quasi speculum sit in quo contemplantur 
Angeli mirificam Dei sapientiam ;’ ὅτε 
ἡμεῖς ἐμάϑομεν, τότε κἀκεῖνοι OL ἡμῶν, 
Chrys. That the holy angels are capable 
of a specific increase of knowledge, and 
of a deepening insight into God’s wis- 
dom, seems from this passage clear and 
incontrovertible ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 12, eis 
ἃ emidupovow ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι, and see 
Petavius, Theol. Dogm. Vol. 111. p. 44 
sq., Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. i. p. 46. 
moAutmolKidos| * manifold,’ ‘ multi- 
formis, Clarom., VWulg.; see Orph. 
Hymn. vt. 11, uxt. 4. This character- 
istic of God’s wisdom is to be traced, 
not in the παράδοξον, by which issues 
were brought about by unlooked-for 
means (διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία 
κατωρϑώϑη, διὰ ϑανάτου ζωή, δι’ ἀσϑε- 
νείας δύναμις, δι ἀτιμίας δόξα, Greg. 
Nyss. ap. Theoph.), but in the πολύτεχ- 
νον (Theoph.), the variety of the divine 
counsels, which nevertheless all mysteri- 
ously cooperated toward a single end, — 
the call of the Gentiles, and salvation of 
mankind by faith in Jesus Christ. The 
use of πολυποίκ. in reference to Gnosti- 
cism (Ireneeus, Her. 1. 4. 1) does not 
give the slightest reason for supposing 
(Baur, Paulus, p. 429) that the use of the 
word here arose from any such allusions. 
11. κατὰ mpds. τῶν αἰώνων) 
‘according to the purpose of the ages ;’ 
modal clause dependent on ἵνα γνωρισϑῇ, 


ll \ r a LA ἃ 5) ἢ > 
KATA TPOSETLW τῶν αἰώνων, ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν 


specifying the accordance of the revela- 
tion of the divine wisdom with God’s 
eternal purpose ; viv μὲν, φησί, γέγονεν, 
οὐ νῦν δὲ ὥριστο, ἀλλ᾽ vwdsev προτετύ- 
πωτο, Chrys. The gen. αἰώνων is some- 
what obscure; it can scarcely be (a) a 
gen. objecti (‘the foreordering of the 
ages,’ Whitby, comp. Peile), or even (ὁ) 
a gen. of the point of view (Scheuerl. 
Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129), —for the Apostle 
is not speaking of God’s purpose in re- 
gard to different times or dispensations, 
but of His single purpose of uniting and 
saving mankind in Christ, — but will be 
most naturally regarded as (c) belonging 
to the general category of the gen. of 
possession (‘the purpose which pertained 
to, existed in, was determined on in the 
ages’), and as serving to define the gen- 
eral relation of time; compare Jude 6, 
κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169. The meaning is 
thus nearly equivalent to that of the 
similar expression 2 Tim. i. 9, πρόϑεσιν 
πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ; God's pur- 
pose existed in His eternal being and 
was formed in the primal ages (‘a seecu- 
lis,’ Syr.) before the foundation of the 
world; comp. ch. i. 4. ἣν ἐποίη- 
σεν] ‘which he wrought, ‘quam fecit,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., Copt., ‘gatavida,’ Goth. 
The exact meaning of ἐποίησεν is doubt- 
ful. The mention of the eternal purpose 
would seem to imply rather ‘constituit’ 
(Harl., Alf.), than ‘ersecutus est’? (De 
W., Mey.), as the general reference 
seems more to the appointment of the 
decree than to its historical realization 
(see Calv., Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 
204); still the words ἐν Xp. Ino. τῷ 
Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν seem so clearly to point 
to the realization, the carrying out of the 
purpose in Jesus Christ,—the Word 
made flesh (compare Olsh.),— that the 
latter (Matth. xxi. 31, John vi. 38, 1 


re 


Cuap. III. 12. 


ΓΕ. A a 7 ς a 12 
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, εν ᾧ 


Kings v. 8, Isaiah xliv. 28) must be 
considered preferable. As, however, St. 
Paul has used a middle term, neither 
προέϑετο nor ἐπετέλεσε, a middle term 
(e. g. ‘wrought,’ ‘made,’—not ‘ful- 
filled,’ Conyb.) should be retained in 
translation. The reading is slightly 
doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 1 and 7) inserts 
τῷ before Xp. with ABC!; 37. 116. al ; 
as, however, the title 6 Xp. Inc. 6 Kup. 
ἡμῶν does not appy. occur elsewhere 
(Col. ii. 6 is the nearest approach to it ; 
see Middl. Gr. Art. Append. 11. p. 495, 
ed. Rose) and the omission is well sup- 
ported [C3DEKL; most mss.; Ath., 
Chrys., Theod.] we still retain the read- 
ing of Rec., Lachm., Tisch. (ed. 2), and 
the majority of editors. 

12. Exouev] Sin whom 
(grounded in whom) we have ;’ appeal 
to, and proof drawn from their Christian 
experience, the relative @ having here a 
slightly demonstrative and explanatory 


5 a 
ἐν @ 


force (ὅτι δὲ διὰ τοῦ Xp. γέγονεν ἅπαν, 
«ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν φησί x. τ. A. Chrys., com- 
pare Theod.), and being nearly equiva- 
lent to ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ; sce Jelf, Gr. § 834. 
2, Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 12, p. 293, and 
notes on Col. i. 27. τὴν wappn- 
σίαν] ‘our boldness,’ ‘fiduciam,’ Cla- 
rom., Vulg.; not here ‘libertatem oris,’ 
whether in ref. to prayer (Beng.) or to 
preaching the Gospel (Vatabl.), as in 
many instances (Lev. xxvi. 13, μετὰ 
mapp. raat, 1 Mace. iv. 18, Heb. ii. 
6, 1 John ii. 28, al.) the primitive mean- 
ing has merged into that of ‘cheerful 
boldness.’ (Sdppos, Zonar. Lea. p. 1508, 
‘Freudigkeit,’ Luth.); that ‘freedom of 
spirit’ (‘freihals,’ Goth.), which becomes 
those who are conscious of the redeeming 


, 


love of Christ; ἁγιάσας yap ἡμᾶς διὰ 
τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος προσήγαγε ϑαῤῥοῦντας, 
(Ecum.; see notes on 1 Lim. iii. 13. 

τὴν προσαγω γῆ ν] ‘our admission; ἢ 
οὐχ ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι, φησί, TpoTHXAN- 


EPHESIANS. 


19 


’ Ke 


ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν 


μεν, GAN ὡς συγγνώμης ἀξιούμενοι, 
Chrys. and sim. the other Greek com- 
mentators ; comp. Avth. ‘ ductorem nos- 
trum,’ and see notes on ch. ii. 18. The 
transitive meaning there advocated is 
appy- a little less certain in the present 
case, on account of the union with the 
intrans. παρῥ. ; still both lexical authority 
and the preceding ref. to our Lord seem 
to require and justify it; comp. Suicer, 
Vol. 11. p. 850. How 
‘the use of the article before both nouns 
signalizes them as the éwin elements of 
an unique privilege’ (Eadie), is not 
clear; see, on the contrary, Winer, Gr. 
19. δὲ». 117: Lachm. omits the 
second art., with AB; 2 mss.; but in 
opp. to CDE (DIE τὴν προσ. «. τ. παῤῥ.) 
FG (FG τὴν προσ. εἰς τ. app.) KL; 
nearly all mss.; Ath., Chrys., Theod., 
al, — authority distinctly preponderant. 
ἐν πεποιϑήσει) ‘in confidence, μετὰ 


Thesaur. 5. v. 


τοῦ Sappetv, Chrys., —a noble example 
of which is afforded by St. Paul himself 
in the sublime words of Rom. viii. 38, 
39 (Mey.). The present clause does 
not qualify mpocaywyn (‘no timorous 
approach,’ Eadie), but the predication of 
manner, and defines the tone and frame 
of mind (‘alacriter libenterque, Calv.) 
in which the προσαγωγὴ is enjoyed and 
realized. Thus, then, ἐν Xp. marks the 
objective ground of the possession, διὰ 
τῆς πίστ. the subjective medium by which, 
and ἐν memow. the subjective state in 
which it is apprehended; ‘tres itaque 
gradus sunt faciendi, nam primum Dei 
promissionibus credimus, deinde his ac- 
quiescentes concipimus fiduciam ut bono 
simus tranquilloque animo: hinc sequi- 
tur audacia, que facit, ut, profligato 
metu, intrepide et constanter nos Deo 
commendemus,’ Caly. Πεποίϑησις (2 
Kings xviii. 19) is only used in the N. 
T. by St. Paul (2 Cor. i. 15, iii. 4, viii. 
22, x. 2, Phil. iii. 4), and is a word of 


10 


T4 


\ \ \ / \ a 7 fa] 
καὶ THY προσωγωγὴν ἐν πεποιδήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. III. 13. 


® 610 


3 “ in 2 lal 5 a / / id \ ς lal v4 > \ 
αὐτουμᾶν [47) EYKAKESY EV TALS λώμεσίν μου ὕπερ ULWV, TLS ἐστιν 


δόξα ὑμῶν. 


later Greek; see Eustath. on Odyss. 111. 
p- 114. 41, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 294 sq. 
πίστεως ‘faith on Him;’ 
gen. objecti, virtually equivalent to πίστ. 
eis αὐτόν; see Rom. iii. 22, Gal. ii. 16, 
and compare notes in loc. It is doubtful 
whether the deeper meaning which Stier 
(compare Matth.) finds in the words, se. 
‘faith of whichs Christ is not only the 
object, but the ground,’ can here be fully 
substantiated. On the whole verse, see 
three posthumous sermons of South, 
Serm, xx1x. sq. Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq. 
(Tegg). 

13. 846] ‘On which account, ‘ where- 
Jore,’ sc., since my charge is so im- 
portant and our spiritual privileges so 


αὐτοῦ] 


great ; διότι μέγα τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κλή- 
σεως ἡμῶν, καὶ μεγάλα ἃ ἐνεπιστεύϑην 
ἔγω, Theoph. The reference of this 
particle has been very differently ex- 
plained. Estius and Meyer, with some 
plausibility, connect it simply with the 
preceding verse, —‘cum igitur, ad tan- 
tam dignitatem vocati sitis, ejusque con- 
sequend fiduciam habeatis per Chris- 
tum; rogo vos, etc.,’ Est. As, however, 
ver. 8—11 contain the principal thought 
to which ver. 12 is only subordinate and 
supplementary, the former alluding to 
the nature and dignity of the Apostle’s 
commission, the latter to its effects 
and results, in which both he and his 
converts (ἔχομεν) share, the particle 
will much more naturally refer to the 
The union of the 
Apostle’s own interests and those of his 
converts in the following words then 
The 
use of διὸ by St. Paul is too varied to 
enable us safely to adduce any grammat- 
ical considerations ; see notes on Gal. iy. 


whole paragraph. 


becomes natural and appropriate. 


2 
ob. 


αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν) 
‘I entreat you not to lose heart;’ ὑμᾶς 


(Eth.) not τὸν Θεόν (Theod.) being sup- 
plied after the verb; comp. 2 Cor. v. 20, 
Heb. xiii. 19 (2 Cor. vi. 1, x. 2, cited by 
De W., are less appropriate), where a 
similar supplement is required. Such 
constructions as ‘I pray (God) that ye 
lose not heart,’ or ‘that I lose not heart’ 
(Syr.), are both open to the objection 
that the object of the verb and subject of 
the inf. (both unexpressed) are thus 
made different without sufficient reason. 
Moreover, such a prayer as that in the 
latter interpretation would here fall 
strangely indeed from the lips of the 
great Apostle who had learnt in his suf- 
ferings to rejoice (Col. i. 24), and in his 
very weakness to find ground for boast- 
ing; compare 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 5. On 
the form ἐγκακεῖν, not ἐκκακεῖν, see notes 
on Gal. vi. 9. ἐν ταῖς δ ,λίψε- 
σιν κι τ. λ.] ‘in my tribulations for you,’ 
“in (not ‘ob, Beza) tribulationibus meis,’ 
Clarom., Vulg.; ἐν as usual denoting 
the sphere, as it were, in which the faint- 
heartedness of the Ephesians might pos- 
sibly be shown; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, 
p- 345. So close was their bond of 
union in Christ, that the Apostle felt his 
afflictions were theirs; they might be 
faint-hearted in his, as if they were their 
own. The article is not necessary before 
ὑπέρ, aS ὥλίψεσι can be considered in 
structural union with ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ; comp. 
λίβεσϑαι ὑπέρ twos, 2 Cor. 1. 6; see 
notes, ch. 1. 15. ἥτις ἐστὶ δόξα 
ὑ μῶ ν] ‘inasmuch as it is your glory;’ 
reason (ὑμετέρα yap δόξα x. τ. A. Theod.) 
or rather explanation why they were not 
to be faint-hearted ; the indef. relative 
being here explanatory (compare i. 23, 
notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Hartung, Casus, 
p. 286), and referring to λίψεσιν on the 
common principle of attraction by which 
the relative assumes the gender of the 


Crap. IIT. 14, 15. 


On this account (I say) I 
pray to God the Father to 
give you strength within, 
and teach you the incom- 


tov Πατέρα, 


EPHESIANS. "5 


1: T 4 / / \ U , \ 
OUTOU χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς 

5 e on a 

"ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς 


prehensible love of Christ, and fill you with God’s fulness. 


predicate ; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 24. 8, p. 
150, Madvig, Synt. § 98. The way in 
which St. Paul’s tribulations could be 
said to tend to the glory of the Ephe- 
sians is simply but. satisfactorily ex- 
plained by Chrys.; ὅτι οὕτως αὐτοὺς 
ἠγάπησεν ὁ Ocds, ὥστε καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῶν δοῦναι καὶ τοὺς δούλους κακοῦν. ἵνα 
γὰρ οὗτοι τύχωσι τοσούτων ἀγαδϑῶν [see 
ver. 8] Παῦλος ἐδεσμεῖτο. The personal 
reason, ‘quod doctorem habetis qui nul- 
lis calamitatibus frangitur’ Calixt. (com- 
pare Theod.), in which case ἥτις must 
refer to μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, seems wholly out of 
the question. Glory accrued to the 
Ephesians from the official dignity, not 
the personal fortitude (καρτερία, Theod.) 
of the sufferer. 

14. τούτου χάριν] ‘On this account, 
sc., ‘because ye are so called and so 
built together in Christ,’ resumption of 
ver. 1 (ταῦτα πάντα ἐν μέσῳ τεϑεικώς, 
ἀναλαμβάνει τὸν περὶ προσευχῆς λόγον, 
Theod.); τούτου χάριν referring to the 
train of thought at the end of ch. ii., 
and to the ideas parallel to it in the 
digression ; in brief, ἐπειδὴ οὕτως ἠγαπή- 
ϑητε παρὰ Θεοῦ, Gicum. κάμπτω 
τὰ γόνατα κ. τ. λ.] “1 bend my knees 
(in prayer ) to;’ 
the earnestness and fervency of his 


expression indicative of 


prayer; τὴν μετὰ κατανύξεως δέησιν ἐσή- 
pave, Theoph., comp. Chrys. Κάμπτειν 
γόνυ (usually κ. ἐπὶ γόνυ in the LXX) is 
joined with the dat. in its simple sense 
(Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, both quotations), 
but here, in the metaphorical sense of 
προσεύχεσϑαι, is appropriately joined 
with πρὸς to denote the object towards 
whom (as it were) the knees were bowed, 
—the mental direction of the prayer ; 
see Winer, Gr. ὁ 49. ἢ, p. 360. On the 
posture of kneeling in prayer, see Bing- 
ham, Antig. x11, 8. 4, and esp. Suicer, 


Thesaur, Vol. τ. p. 777. The inter- 
polation, after πατέρα, of the words τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν 71. X., though undoubtedly 
ancient, and well supported [DEFGKL ; 
nearly all mss.; Syr., Vulg., Goth., al. ; 
Chrys., Theod., al.|, is rightly rejected 
in favor of the text [ABC; 2 mss.; 
Demid., Copt., Aith. (both), al.; Orig., 
Cyr., al.] by nearly all modern editors 
except De Wette and Eadie. 

15. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ ‘after whom ΠῚ 
éx pointing to the origin or source whence 
the name was derived ; see notes on Gal. 
ii. 16, and compare Xen. Mem. tv. 5. 8, 
ἔφη δὲ καὶ τὸ διαλέγεσϑαι ὀνομασϑῆναι etc 
τοῦ συνιόντας κοινῇ βουλεῦεσϑαι, Hom. 
Il. x. 08, πατρόδεν ἐκ γενεῆς ὀνομάζων. 
Less direct origination is expressed by 
ἀπό; comp. ὀνομαζ. ἀπό, Herod. νι. 129. 
πᾶσα πατριά)]) ‘every race, fumily,’ 
not ‘the whole family,’ Auth.; see Mid- 
dleton in loc., p. 361 (ed. Rose). The 
use of the particular term πατριὰ is evi- 
dently suggested by the preceding πατέρα 
(mar. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριά), its exact mean- 
ing, however, and still more its present 
reference, are both very debatable. With 
regard to the first it may be said that 
πατριὰ does not imply (a) ‘paternitas,’ 
Syr., Vulg., al. (κυρίως πατήρ, καὶ ἀλη- 
Sas πατὴρ 6 Θεός, Theod., compare Tho- 
luck, Bergpr. p. 894), a translation nei- 
ther defensible in point of etymology or 
exegesis, but is either used in (0) the 
more limited sense of ‘familia’ (metiot, 
Copt., comp. Arm.), or more probably 
(c) that of the more inclusive ‘gens’ 
(Heb. τπῖτ 2, less commonly rass ro2, 
compare Gesen, Lex. s. v. m2, 10); see 
Herod. 1, 200, εἰσί τῶν Βαβυλωνίων πατ- 
ριαὶ τρεῖς, and compare Acts iii. 25 with 
Gen. xii, 8, where πατριὰ and φυλὴ are 
interchanged. If, then, as seems most 
correct, we adopt this more inclusive 


76 


16 7 


‘ BLN Lal ’ / 
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, * wa 


meaning, the reference must be to those 
larger and communities into 
which, as we may also infer from other 
passages (comp. ch. i. 21, notes, Col. i. 
16, notes), the celestial hosts appear to 
be divided, and to the races and tribes 
of men (‘queeque regionum,’ /&th.), 
every one of which owes the very title 
of πατριὰ, by which it is defined, to the 
great Πατὴρ of all the πατριαὶ both of 
angels and men; this title οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν 


classes 


ἀνῆλϑεν ἄνω, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνωϑεν ἦλϑεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, 
Severian ap. Cramer, Caten. (in loc.) ; 
see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 1238, 
and Suicer, Thesaur. s. ν. Vol. 11. p. 
637. ὀνομάζεται is thus taken in its 
simple etymological sense, ‘7s named, 
bears the name,’ scil. of matpia; “ dicitur,’ 
Copt., al., ‘namnajada,’ Goth. ; see Mey. 
All special interpolations, e. g. 
‘nominantur jfiliz Dei, (Beng., compare 
Beza), or arbitrary interpretations, of 
ὀνομαζ, 6. g., ‘existit, originem accipit’ 
(Estius, al.; comp. Riick.), — meanings 
which even καλεῖσϑαι (Eadie) never di- 
rectly bears, — are wholly inadmissible. 
16. ἵνα δῴη] ‘that He would give to 
you;’ subject of the prayer being blended 
with the purpose of making it; see 
notes on ch. i. 17, where the unusual 
form δῴη is also briefly discussed. The 
reading is here somewhat doubtful. 
Lachm. adopts δῷ with ABCFG; 3 
mss.; Orig. (Cat.), Bas., Method., al. 
(Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Mey.), but perhaps 
not rightly, as it seems much more 
probable that δῷ was a grammatical cor- 
rection of δῴη, than that δῴη was a cor- 
rection of δῷ arising from a remem- 
brance of ch. 1. 17. We retain then the 
rarer form, δῴη, with DEJK; great ma- 
jority of mss.; Ath., Mac., Chrysost., 
Theod., al. So Rec., Tisch., (ed. 2, 7), 
Harl., De W., and most recent editors. 
κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος kK. τ. A.| Saccord- 
ing to the riches of His glory,’ according 


in loc. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. III. 16. 
δῴη ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς 


to the abundance and plenitude of His 
own perfections ; see notes on ch. i. 7. 

δυνάμει] ‘with power,’ ‘with (infused) 
strength ;’ ‘ut virtute seu fortitudine ab 
eo accepta corroboremini,’ Estius. This 
dative has been differently explained ; it 
cannot be (a) the dat. of " reference to’ 
or, more correctly speaking, of ‘ ethical 
locality’ (see notes on Gal. i. 22, and 
exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 48.15, 6. g. 
χρήμασι δυνατοὶ εἶναι, ete.), for it was 
not one particular faculty, power as opp. 
to knowledge, ete., but the whole ‘inner 
man,’ which was to be strengthened. 
Harl. cites Acts iv. 33, but the exampie 
is inapplicable. Nor again (b) does it 
appear used adverbially (dat. of manner, 
Jelf, Gr. § 603. 2), for this, though a 
more plausible interpr. (see Riick.), is 
open to the objection of directing the 
thought to the strengthener rather than 
to the subject in whom strength is to be 
infused ; see Meyer in loc. It is thus 
more correctly regarded as (c) the simple 
instrumental dat. (Arm.) detining the ele- 
ment or influence of which the Spirit is 
the ‘causa medians ;’ 
Col. i. 11, 
&pwovr]| ‘into the inner man ;’ direction 
and destination of the prayed-for gift of 
infused strength; the clause being obvi- 
ously connected with kparaws. (Vulg., 
Goth.,—appy.) not with κατοικῆσαι 
(Syr., Copt., /ith., and Gr. Ff.), and 
eis not being for ἐν (Beza), nor even in 
its more lax sense, ‘in regard of’ (Mey.; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354), but in 
its more literal and expressive sense of 
‘to and into;’ ‘the inner man’ is the 
recipient of it (6 χωρῶν, Schol. ap. 
Cram. Caten.), the subject ‘into whom’ 
the δύναμις is infused ; compare notes on 
Gal. 27. The expression ὁ ἔσω 
ἄνδρ. (Rom. vii. 22) is nearly identical 
with, but somewhat more inclusive than 


comp. ἐν δυνάμει, 
, yv v 
εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄν- 


iii. 


ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνϑρωπος (1 Pet. 


Cuap. III. 17. 


EPHESIANS. 17 


δόξης αὐτοῦ δυνάμει κραταιωδῆναι διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς 
τὸν ἔσω avSpwrov, “ κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως 


ill. 4), and stands in antithesis to ὁ ἔξω 
ἄνϑρωπος (2 Cor. iv. 16); the former 
being practically equivalent to the νοῦς, 
or higher nature of man (Rom. vii. 23), 
the latter to the σὰρξ or the μέλη ; see 
Beck, Seelen/. 111. 21. 3, p. 68. It is 
within this ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος that the powers 
of regeneration are exercised (Harless, 
Christl. Ethik, § 22. a), and it is from 
their operation in this province that the 
whole man (‘secundum interna specta- 
tus,’ Beng.) becomes a νέος ἄνϑρωπος (as 
opp. to a former state), or a καινὸς ἄν- 
Spwmos (as opp. to a former corrupt 
state, ch. iv. 24), and is either 6 κατὰ 
Θεὸν κτισἣὃ εἰς (ch. iy. 24), or ὁ ava- 
καινούμενος" εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα 
τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν (Col. iii. 10), accord- 
ing to the point of view under which 
regeneration is regarded; see Harless, 
Ethik, § 24. ς. The distinction between 
this and the partially synonymous terms 
πνεῦμα, and vovs, may perhaps be thus 
roughly stated: πνεῦμα is simply the 
highest of the three parts of which man 
is composed (see notes on 1 Thess. y. 
23); νοῦς the πνεῦμα regarded more in 
its moral and intellectual aspects, ‘ quate- 
nus intelligit, cogitat, et vult’ (see notes 
on Phil. iv. 7); ὁ ἔσω tv&p., the πνεῦμα, 
or rather the whole immaterial portion, 
considered in its theological aspects, and 
as the seat of the inworking powers of 
grace; compare Olsh. on Rom. vii. 22, 
Opusc. Theol. p. 143 sq., Beck, Seelenl. 
11. 13, p. 35, and on the threefold nature 
of man generally, University Serm. v. p. 
99—120. The attempt to connect 
St. Paul’s inspired definitions with the 
terminology of earlier (6 ἐντὸς ἄνδρ. 
Plato, Republ. 1x. 589), or of later Pla- 
tonism (6 ἔνδον &ydp. Plot. Ennead. τ. 1. 
10), as in Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. 63, will 
be found on examination to be untena- 


ble. The dissimilarities are marked, the 
supposed parallelisms illusory. 

17. κατοικῆσαι τὸν Xp. ‘that 
Christ may dwell in your hearts ;’ issue 
and result (ὥστε κατοικῆσαι, Orig.), not 
purpose (Eadie), of the inward strength- 
ening ; the present clause not being par- 
allel to δυνάμει κραταιωδ. (Mey.), and 
dependent on δῴη, but as the emphatic 
position of κατοικῆσαι seems clearly to 
show, appended to κραταιωϑῆναι with a 
partially climactic force, but a somewhat 
lax grammatical connection ; see Winer, 
Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284, compare Madvig, 
Synt. § 153. The meaning is thus per- 
fectly clear and simple; the indwelling 
of Christ, the taking up of His abode 
[κατ οικῆσαι, Matth. xii. 45, Luke xi. 
26, Col. i. 19 (see notes), 2 Pet. iii. 13; 
the simple form is, however, used, Rom. 
vill. 9, 1 Cor. iii. 16] is the result of the 
working of the Holy Spirit on the one 
side, and the subjective reception of man 
(διὰ τῆς πίστ.) on the other; ‘non procul 
intuendum esse Christum fide, sed recip- 
iendum esse animz nostre complexu,’ 
Calv. τὸν Χριστόν] The at- 
tempt of Fritz. (Rom. viii. 10, Vol. 11. 
p- 118) to show that Χριστὸς is here 
merely ‘mens quam Christus postulat,’ 
by comparing such passages as Arist. 
Acharn. 484, καταπιὼν Εὐριπίδην, is as 
painful as it is unconvincing. What a 
contrast is the vital exegesis of Chrys., 
πῶς δὲ ὁ Xp. κατοικεῖ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, 
ἄκουε αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἔλευ- 
σόμεϑα ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατήρ, καὶ μονὴν παρ᾽ 
αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν. 
ats] ‘in your hearts;’ ‘partem etiam 
designat ubi legitima est Christi sedes, 
nempe cor: ut sciamus non satis esse si 
in lingua versetur, aut in cerebro voli- 
tet,’ Calv. On the meaning of καρδία 
(properly the imaginary seat of the 


ἐν ταῖς καρδί- 


78 


ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, 


ψυχή, and thence the seat and centre of 
the moral life viewed on the side of the 
affections), see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 
Iv. ll, p. 203 sq., and notes on Phil. 
iv. 7. 

18. ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥ. καὶ τεϑ.] ‘ye 
having been rooted and grounded in love ;’ 
state consequent on the indwelling of 
Christ, viz., one of fixedness and founda- 
tion in love, the participle reverting 
irregularly to the nominative for the 
sake of making the transition to the fol- 
lowing clause more easy and natural: 
δοκεῖ μοι σαφῶς τὰ ἑξῆς ἐν σολοικίῳ 
εἰρήσϑαι, ὡς πρὸς τὴν φράσιν. πρὸς γὰρ τὸ 
“δῴη ὑμῖν, ἀκόλουϑον ἦν εἰπεῖν ἐῤῥιζωμέ- 
. 6 δὲ ϑέλων 


ἀποκαταστῆσα! τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον χωρὶς 


νοις καὶ τεδεμελιοι μένοις. .. 


coAotkias, σκέψαι εἰ μὴ βιάσεται οὕτω τὴν 
φράσιν ἀποκοταστάς, Origen ap. Cramer, 
Caten. The assumed transposition of 
ἵνα (ἵνα ἐῤῥ. καὶ red. ἐξισχ., Auth., Mey., 
—but adopted by none of the ancient 
Vy. except Goth.), which Origen thus 
properly rejects, cannot be justified by 
any necessity for emphasis, or by the 
passages adduced by Fritz (Rom. xi-31, 
Vol. 11. p. 541), viz. Acts xix. 4, John 
παῖ, 2951 (@orix 15; 21Corsi. 4a Gal. 
ii. 10, 2 Thess. ii. 7, as in all of them 
(except Thess. J. c., which is not analo- 
gous) the premised words are not, as 
here, connected with the subject, but 
form the objective factor of the sentence. 
The only argument of any real weight 
against the proposed interpr. is not so 
much syntuctic (for see the numerous 
exx. of similar irregularities in Winer, 
Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 620, Kriiger, Sprachil. 
§ 56. 9.4) as ereg tical, it being urged 
that the perf. part. which points to a 
completed state is inconsistent with a 
prayer which seems to refer to a state of 
progress, and to require the present part. 
(see Meyer). The answer, however, 
seems satisfactory, — that the clause does 


EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. III. 18. 


> SJ / : Ἦν δ᾽ Ἂ i A 
* ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεδεμελιωμέ- 


express the state which must ensue upon 
the indwelling of Christ, before what is 
expressed in the next clause (ἵνα ἐξισχ.) 
can in any way be realized, and that 
therefore the perf. part. is perfectly cor- 
rect. The Apostle prays that they may 
be strengthened, that the resu/t of it may 
be the indwelling of Christ, the state 
naturally consequent on which would be 
fixedness in the principle of Christian 
love. We now notice the separate 
words. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘in love, — 
not either of Christ (compare Chrysost. 
ἀγάπη avtov) or of God (Wolf), either 
of which references would certainly have 
required some defining gen., but the 
Christian principle of love, — love, ἥτις 
ἐστὶ σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος, Col. iii. 
4. This was to be their basis and foun- 
dation, in which alone they were to be 
fully enabled to realize all the majestic 
proportions of Christ’s surpassing love 
to man; comp. 1 John iy. 7 sq. 

The absence of the article is unduly 
pressed both by Meyer (= ‘in amando’) 
and Harl. (‘subjective love,’ ‘man’s love 
to Christ’), such omissions in the case 
of abstract nouns, esp. when preceded 
by prepp., being not uncommon in the 
ΝΕ Sisco ἜΣ ΣΧ SVAner Ὑ. δ᾽ 10..} 
109, and comp. Middleton, Greek Art. 
vi. 1, p. 98 (ed. Rose). ep pre. 
καὶ redeu.| It has been said that 
there is here a mixture of metaphors ; 
compare Olsh., Meyer, al. This is not 
strictly true; ῥιζόω is abundantly used 
both with an ethical (Herod. 1. 64, Plu- 
tarch, Mfor. 6 ©) and a physical (Hom. 
Od. x111. 163) reference, without any 
other allusion to its primitive meaning, 
than that of jfixedness, firmness, at the 
base or foundation; see exx. in Rost. τι. 
Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1837, and 
Wetst. in loc. ἵνα ἐξισχύσητ ε) 
‘in order that ye may be fully able ;’ object 
contemplated in the prayer for Christ’s 


απαν- III. 19. 


EPHESIANS. 79 


ey ’ , / \ aA “ e / r x 
vot, va ἐξισχύσητε καταλαβέσϑαι σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις, TL TO 


x ~ A ΄, \ ΄ 
πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάδος καὶ ὕψος, ” γνῶναί τε τὴν ὑπερβάλ- 


indwelling in their hearts, and their con- 
sequent fixedness in love; Ἅ“ἨὨ:ἐξισχύσ.᾽ 
φησίν: ὥστε ἰσχύος πολλῆς δεῖ, Chrys. ; 
comp. Ecclus. vii. 6, μὴ οὐκ ἐξισχύσεις 
ἐξᾶραι ἀδικίας. καταλαβέσϑαι 
‘to comprehend ;’ the tense perhaps imply- 
ing the singleness of the act (see exx. 
Winer, Gr. § 44. 7, p. 296, but see notes 
on ver. 4), and the voice the exercise 
of the mental power; see esp. Donalds. 
Gr. § 432. bb, where this is termed 
the appropriative middle, and Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., where it is termed 
the dynamic middle, as indicating the 
earnestness or spiritual energy with 
which the action is performed. The 
meaning of the verb (κατανοεῖσϑαι He- 
sych.) can scarcely be doubtful; the 
meaning ‘occupare’ (compare Goth. 
‘gafahan,’ Coptic taho) adopted by 
Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), and sup- 
ported only by one proper example, is 
here plainly untenable, as the middle 
yoice only occurs in the N. T. in refer- 
ence to the mental powers ; comp. Acts 
LV. WSs XK. B94, xxv 25. τί τὸ 
πλάτος κ. τ. A.] ‘what is the breadth, 
and length, and depth, and height ;’ cer- 
tainly not ‘latitudinem quandam, ete.’ 
Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 294), such a 
use of τί implying a transposition, and 
assigning a meaning here singularly 
improbable. The exact force and appli- 
cation of these words is somewhat doubt- 
ful. Without noticing the various spir- 
itual applications (sce Corn. a Lap., and 
Pol. Syn. in loc.) all of which seem more 
or less arbitrary, it may be said (1) that 
St. Paul is here expressing the idea of 
greatness, metaphysically considered, by 
the ordinary dimensions of space; διὰ 
yap τοῦ μήκ. καὶ TA. καὶ Bad. καὶ ὕψ. τὸ 
μέγεϑος παρεδήλωσεν" ἐπειδὴ ταῦτα μεγέ- 
Sous δηλωτικά, Theod. It is, however, 
more difficult (2) to specify what it is of 


which this greatness and dimensions are 
predicated. Setting again aside all arbi- 
trary references (ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ φύσις, 
Orig., Sever., ‘contemplatio Ecclesiz,’ 
Beng., Eadie), we seem left to a choice 
between a reference to (a) ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ 
Θεοῦ πῶς πανταχοῦ ἐκτέταται, Chrysost., 
τῆς χάριτος τὸ μέγεδος, Theod.-Mops. ; 
or (0) ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Xp., Caly., Mey. If 
the preceding ἀγάπη had referred to the 
love of God, (a) would have seemed 
most probable; as it does not, and as its 
general meaning there would be inappli- 
cable here, (b) seems the most natural 
explanation. Thus then the consequent 
clause, without being dependent or ex- 
planatory, still practically supplies the 
defining gen.: St. Paul pauses on the 
word ὕψος, and then, perhaps feeling it 
the most apprepriate characteristic of 
Christ’s love, he appends, without finish- 
ing the construction, a parallel thought 
which hints at the same conception 
(ὑπερβάλλουσαν), and suggests the re- 
quired genitive. The order BaSos 
x. ὕψος, has only the support of AKL ; 
most’ mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Orig., Chrys., 
Theod., al. (Tisch., Meyer, Alf.) ; but is 
appy. rightly maintained, even in opp. 
to BCDEFG; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., 
Syr., Goth., Copt.; Ath., Maced. (Rec., 
Lachm.) which adopt the more natural, 
and for this very reason, the more suspi- 
cious order. 

19. γνῶναί te] ‘and to know ;’ sup- 
plemental clause to καταλαβέσϑαι κ. τ. A., 
the former referring to the comprehensive 
knowledge of essentia!s (Olsh.), the lat- 
ter further specifying the practical knowl- 
edge arising from religious experience. 
It may be remarked, that though the 
union of sentences by te is characteristic 
of later Greek, (Bernhardy, Synt. xx- 
17, p. 483), it is comparatively rare in 
the Gospels. In the Epistles, but most 


80 


λουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ 
τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


especially in the Acts, it is of more 
Te is to be dis- 
tinguished from καὶ as being adjunctive 
rather than conjunctive; like ‘que,’ it 
appends to the foregoing clause (which 
is to be conceived as haying a separate 
and independent existence, Jelf, Gr. § 
754. 6), an additional, and, very fre- 
quently, a new thought ;—a thought 
which, though not necessary to (Herm. 
Viger, No. 315), is yet often supple- 
mental to, and partially involved in the 
first clause; comp. Acts ii. 23, Heb. 1. 3, 
and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8, p. 517 
(ed. 5). 
γνώσεως ay.| ‘the knowledye-surpass- 
ing love ;’ the gen. γνώσεως being due to 
the notion of comparison involved in 
ὑπερβάλλειν ; comp. Ausch. Prom. 944, 
βροντῆς ὑπερβάλλοντα κτύπον, Arist. Pol. 
111. 9, and see Jelf, Gr. § 504, Bern- 
hardy, Synt. 111. 48. Ὁ, p. 169. The 
words can scarcely be twisted into mean- 
ing ‘the exceeding love of God in be- 
stowing on us the knowledge of Christ’ 
(Dobree, Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573), nor 
can the participle ὕπερβ. be explained in 
an infinitival sense,‘ to know that the 
love of Christ is ἀνεξιχνίαστον (comp. 
Harl.),—a translation untenable in point 
of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, note, 
Ῥ. 309), and unsatisfactory in exegesis, 
— but, as its position shows, must be 
regarded as simply adjectival. The sen- 
tence then contains an oxymoron or 
apparent paradox (comp. 1 Cor. i. 21, 
Die Or vill. Ὁ. (Gall. nil- 19}Ὲ1 em: ave, 
6), thus simply and satisfactorily ex- 
plained by Chrysost. (ed. Savile) and 
Cicum , ef καὶ ὑπερκεῖται πάσης γνώσεως 


common occurrence. 


τὴν ὑπερβάλλ. THS 


avSpwrivns [this is too restricted] 7 ἀγάπη 
τοῦ Xp. duws ὑμεῖς γνώσεσϑε εἰ τὸν Xp. 
σχοίητε ἐνοικοῦντα : comp. Theophylact. 
Γνῶναι is thus contrasted with γνώσις ; 
the former being that knowledge which 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. III. 19. 


Χριστοῦ, ἵνα πληρωϑδῆτε εἰς πᾶν 


arises from the depths of religious expe- 
rience (τὸ γνῶναι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολαῦσαι 
λέγει, Theod.-Mops.), the knowledge 
that is ever allied with love (Phil. i. 9) ; 
the latter abstract knowledge, not merely 
ἀνδρωπίνη (Chrys.), and most certainly 
not ψευδώνυμος (Holzh.), but knowledge 
without reference to religious conscious- 
ness or Christian love; comp. 1 Cor. 
viii. 1 sq., xiii. 8. ἀγάπην τοῦ 
Χρ.] ‘love of Christ towards us ;’ gen. 
subjecti ; not ‘love for Christ,’ 1 John ii. 
δ..:1Ὁ. ἵνα πληρώϑητε κ. τ. λ.] 
‘that ye may be filled to all the fulness of 
God ;’ object and purpose of ἐξισχύειν 
καταλαβέσϑαι : ὥστε πληροῦσϑαι πάσης 
ἀρετῆς hs πλήρης ἐστίν ὃ Θεός, Chrysost. 
(ed. Sav.). There is some little diffi- 
culty in these words, arising from the 
ambiguity of the meaning of πλήρωμα. 
If we adhere (a) to the more strict mean- 
ing, ‘id quo res impletur’ (see Fritz. 
Rom. Vol, 11. p. 469 sq., notes on Gal. 
iv. 4), the words must imply ‘that ye 
may be so filled as God is filled’ (Olsh.), 
τοῦ Θεοῦ being the possessive gen , and τὸ 
mAnp. referring, not to the essence, still 
less to the δόξα (Harl.), but to the spirit- 
ual perfections of God. Owing to the 
somewhat obvious objection, that such a 
fulness could never be completely real- 
ized in this present state of human im- 
perfection (1 Cor. xiii. 10 sq.), De W. 
and Mey. adopt (δ) the secondary mean- 
ing of πλήρωμα, scil. πλοῦτος, πλῆϑος 
(see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 471), the 
translation being either, ‘ut pleni fiatis 
usque eo ut omnes Dei opes animis ves- 
tris recipiatis’ (Fritz. 7b.), or ‘ut omni- 
bus Dei donis abundetis’ (Est.), accord- 
ing as Θεοῦ is regarded more as a 
possessive gen.; or as a gen. of the orig- 
inating cause (notes on 1 Thess. i. 6). 
Both these latter interpretations are, 
however so frigid and so little in har- 


3 


Cuap. III. 20, 21. 


Doxology. 


EPHESIANS, 81 


20 Us peat δὲ ὃ δ ωπον , a € 
f (= VUVALEV® UTrEp TAVTA “ποίησαι υπερ- 


ἴων i ’ 3 ἴω ΄ 
εκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεγα ἢ νοοῦμεν, κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνερ- 
ουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, “᾿ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία ἐν X 5 
γουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, ῷ ἡ 2 ἐκκλησίᾳ ριστῷ 


mony with the climactic character of the 
passage (Suv. κρατ. διὰ τοῦ Πν...... 
H@TOLK ρινς «ἐς ἵνα πληρωῦ. εἰς πᾶν τὸ 
πλήρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ), and the apparently well 
considered use of εἰς (not ἐν instrumental 
or an ablatival dat.), that we do not hes- 
itate to adopt (a), and urge, with Olsh., 
that where Christ the living Son of God 
dwells, there surely πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τοῦ 
Θεοῦ is already; comp. Col. ii. 19. 

εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρ!] ‘to all the fulness;’ 
‘in omnem plenitudinem,’ Clarom., Vul- 
gate; εἰς not implying ‘accordance to’ 
(Eadie), but with its usual and proper 
force, denoting the end (here quantita- 
tively considered ), or limit of the πλήρω- 
ats; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v. εἰς, 
111., Vol. 1. p. 803, compare Bernhardy, 
Synt. vy. 11. b, p. 218. 

20. τῷ δὲ δυναμ έν ῳ] ‘Now to Him 
that is able ;’ concluding doxology, not 
without some antithesis (δὲ) between 
Him who is the subject of the present 
verse, and the finite beings who are the 
subjects of the preceding verses. 
ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι] ‘to do (effect, 
complete) beyond all things ;’ ‘ periphrasis 
Dei Patris emphatica,’ Vorst. That 
ὑπὲρ cannot here be taken adverbially 
seems almost self-evident; the order 
would thus be needlessly artificial and 
the sentence tautologous; comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 50. 7. 2, p. 376. 
περισσοῦ ὧν κ. τ. λ.] ‘superabun- 
dantly byond what we ask or think ;’ 
second member explanatory of the pre- 
ceding, ὧν not referring to πάντα, but 
forming with αἰτούμ. and νοοῦμ. a fresh 
and more specific subject: ὅρα δὲ δύο 
ὑπερβολάς. τὸ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι τὰ εἰρη- 


ὑὕπερεκ- 


μένα, καὶ ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ποιῆσαι ἃ ποιεῖ, 
ἔνι γὰρ καὶ πλείονα ποιοῦντα τῶν αἰτηϑέν- 
τῶν κεφάλαια, μὴ πλουσίως μήτε δαψιλῶς 
ἕκαστον ποιῆσαι, (οι, The cumula- 


tive compound ὑὕπερεκ. occurs 1 Thess. 
iii. 10 (comp. notes) v. 13, and belongs 
to a class of compounds (those with 
ὑπέρ), for which the Apostle seems to 
have had a somewhat marked predilec- 
tion ; compare ὑπερνικάω, Rom. viii. 37 ; 
ὑπερπερισσεύω, Rom. vy. 20, 2 Cor. vii. 
4; ὑπερλίαν, ib. xi. 5; ὑπερυψόω, Phil. 
ll. 9; ὑπεραυξάνω, 2 Thess. i. 3 ὑπερ- 
πλεονάζω, 1 Tim. i. 14; and see Fritz. 
Rom. ν. 20, Vol. 1. p. 351. It is notice- 
able that ὑπὲρ occurs nearly thrice as 
many times in St. Paul’s Epp. and the 
Ep. to the Heb. as in the rest of the N. 
T., and that, with a few exceptions 
(Mark vii. 37, Luke vi. 38, etc.), the 
compounds of ὑπὲρ are all found in St. 
Paul’s Epp. The gen. ὧν is governed 
by ὑπερεκπ. as γνώσεως by ὑπερβάλλου- 
σαν, ver. 19; comp. Bernh. Synt. 111. 34, 
p- 139 sq. αἰτούμεϑα i) νοοῦ- 
μεν] ‘we ask or think;’ not only the 
requests we actually prefer, but all that 
it might enter into the mind to conceive; 
“cogitatio latius patet quam preces’ Ben- 
gel; comp. Phil. iv. 7. THY 
ἐνεργΎ. ἐν ἡ μῖν] ‘which worketh in us, 
se. in our souls’, ‘que operatur in nobis,’ 
Clarom., Vulg.; ἐνεργ. not being here 
passive (Hamm., Bull, Exam. 11. 3), but 
middle (Syr., Goth., ASth., Arm.), as in 
Gal. v. 6, where see notes. On the con- 
structions of évepyéw, see notes on Gal. 
ii. 8, and on the distinction between the 
uses of act. (mainly in personal ref.) 
and middle (mainly in non-personal 
ref.), Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. The 
δύναμις, which so energizes, is the power 
of the Holy Ghost; comp. ver. 16, Rom. 
viii. 26. 

21. αὐτῷ] ‘to Him;’ rhetorical repe- 
tition of the pronoun, — not, however, 
in accordance with ‘Hebrew usage’ 
(Eadie), but in agreement with the sim- 


11 


82 EPHESIANS. Cuap. ITI, 21. 


3 a N lo) A a 
Inood, εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων: ἀμήν. 


91. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7), Harl, De Wette, Mey., 
al., with D2 [E, Χρ. Ἰ ἐν τῇ éxx.] KL; great majority of mss.; Goth., Syr. (both), 
al.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. (text), Theoph., Gicum.; Vig. The variations can be 
so satisfactorily accounted for that there seems little doubt that this is the true read- 
Assuming it to be so, the preéminence due to Christ would first have sug- 
gested a change of order (compare E): the insertion of καὶ would have easily fol- 
lowed, as in D1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., Boern.; Ambrst.; it would thus have 
acquired such a footing in the text, as to be maintained even when the right order 


ing. 


was observed. 


We have hence the fairly attested, though appy. spurious, reading, 


ἐν τῇ ex. καὶ ἐν Xp. I. in ABC; 73, 80, 213; Vulg., Copt., Arm.; Dam. (comm.) ; 


Hier., Pel. (Lachm., Riickert.). 


ple principles of emphasis ; see Bernh., 
Synt. vi. 11. ¢, p. 290. ἡ δόξα] 
‘the glory that is due to Him, and re- 
dounds to Him from such gracious deal- 
ings towards us;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5. 
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. ἐν Xp. “Ina.] ‘in the 
Church, in Christ Jesus ;’ the first mem- 
ber denoting the outward province, the 
second the inward and spiritual sphere 
in which God was to be praised. The 
second member ἐν Xp. Inc. is thus not 
for διὰ Xp. (Theoph.), nor for σὺν Xp. 
(Cicum.), but retains its proper mean- 
ing, specifying, not exactly the manner 
(De W.), but the true element in which 
alone praise was duly to be ascribed to 
God; ‘if any glory come from us to 
God it is by [in] Christ,’ Sanders (cited 
by Wordsw. in loc.). The ordinary ex- 
planation, ‘the Church (which is) in 
Christ Jesus,’ is objectionable, not so 
much on account of the absence of the 
article (for comp. 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. 
i. 1), as on account of the then appy. 
superfluous character of the words (the 
exxA. here mentioned could only be the 
Christian Church), which in our present 
interpr. echo the preceding τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(ver. 19) with special and appropriate 
force; contrast Alf zn loc., who still par- 
tially connects the two members; but 
comp. Syr., which by its omission of the 
relative here, and its insertion in Thess. 
Il. cc., seems not obscurely to fayor our 


present view. Lachm. and Riick. 
insert καὶ (καὶ ἐν Xp. Ino.) with a fair 
amount of authority (see crit. note), — 
but contrary to critical probability; as 
the insertion of the copula seems more 
naturally due to emendation (observe 
the variations zm loc.), than its omission 
to an error in transcription. eis 
πάσας γενεάς κ. τ. λ.] ‘to all the gen- 
erations of the age of the ages ;’ compare 
Dan. vii. 18, ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν αἰῶνων, 3 
Esdr. iv. 38, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, 
and see notes on (ταί. i. ὅ. The cumu- 
lative expression is somewhat peculiar, 
It is not improbable, as Grotius suggests, 
that the two formulz expressive of end- 
less continuity, γενεαὶ γενεῶν, Luke 1. 50, 
and αἰῶνες τῶν aidvwy, are here blended 
together. The use of γενεαὶ suggests 
the use of the singular αἰών, as the con- 
ception of the successive generations 
composing the entirety of the aidy is 
thus more clearly presented, while again 
the subjoined plural marks that αἰὼν as 
also composed of a series of αἰῶνες (gen. 
of the content) of which it is the sum 
and aggregation. Harless finds a differ- 
ence between the two expressions αἰῶνες 
τῶν αἰώνων and αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων, the for- 
mer being rather eatensive, and convey- 
ing the idea of πάντες αἰῶνες, the latter 
being rather intensive, ‘ seeculum szeculo- 
rum, quod omnia szcula in se continet’ 
(Drus.), and more strictly in accordance 


ΘῊΡ iV 1: 


Walk worthy of your voca- 
tion in lowliness, in love, 
and especially in unity; 
there is but one body, one 
Spirit, one Lord, and one God. 


with the Hebrew superlative. This is in- 
genious, but appy. of doubtful application, 
as in actual practice the difference between 
the two expressions is hardly apprecia- 
ble. Baur (Paulus, p. 433) finds in this 
expression distinct traces of Gnosticism : 
it is unnecessary to refute such utterly 
foregone conclusions. 


CuarTer IV. 1. παρακαλῶ οὖν) 
“1 exhort you then;’ commencement of 
the practical portion of the Epistle 
(comp. Rom. xii. 1), following naturally 
and with an appropriate retrospective 
reference (οὖν) to what has preceded ; 
οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἐπιδείξας τῆς elas evepye- 
σίας τὸν πλοῦτον, ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδη προτρέπει 
τῆς ἀρετῆς, Theod. The meaning of 
mapakad@ will thus be both here and in 
Rom. /. 6. more naturally ‘hortor’ 
(παρακ. τὸ προτρέπω, ws ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, 
Thom. M. p. 684, ed. Bern.) than ‘ obse- 
cro,’ (Clarom., Vulg., Arm., and most 
Vy.),—a meaning which it sometimes 
bears, but which would seem inapplicable 
in the present context; see Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 111. p. 4, and, for a general notice 
of the word, Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. 
Ρ. 127 sq.; comp. also notes on 1 Thess. 
Ver lilte The evract reference of οὖν 
is more doubtful; Meyer refers it to the 
verse immediately preceding, Winzer 
and Alford (Rom. ἰ. ce.) to the whole 
doctrinal portion of the Ep.; the former 
view, however, seems too narrow, the 
latter too vague. The more natural ref. 
is appy. to those passages in the preced- 
ing chap. which relate to the spiritual 
privileges and calling of the Ephesians, 
e. g. ver. 6, 12, but especially to 14 sq., 
in which the tenor of the prayer inci- 
dentally discloses how high and how 
great that calling really was. On the 
true force of this particle, see Klotz, 


EPHESIANS. 83 


IV. Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν 
Κυρίῳ, ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς 


Devar. Vol. 11. p. 117, Donalds. Gr., ὃ 
548. 31, and comp. notes on Piil. ii. 1. 

6 δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘the prisoner 
in the Lord,’ i. e., as paraphrased by 
Fritz., ‘ego vinctus in Christi castris ;’ 
not παρακ. ἐν Kup., a construction at 
variance both with the grammatical 
order of the words, and the apparent 
force of the exhortation; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 20. 2, p. 123. St. Paul exhorts not 
merely as the prisoner, but as the pris- 
oner in the Lord; ‘a vinculis majorem 
5101 auctoritatem vindicat,’ Calv.; comp. 
Gal. vi. 17. Thus ἐν Kup. is not for διὰ 
Kup. (Chrysost., Theod.), or σὺν Kup. 
(CEcum.), but denotes the sphere in 
which captivity existed, and out of which 
it did not exist; ‘in Domini enim vincu- 
lis constrictus est, qui ἐν Κυρίῳ ay vinc- 
tus est,’ Fritz. Rom. viii. 1, Vol. 11. p. 
82 sq.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 34. The 
distinction between this and 6 δέσμ. τοῦ 
Xp., ch. iii. 1, seems to be that in the lat- 
ter the captivity is referred immediately 
to Christ as its author and originator, in 
the former to the union with Him and 
devotion to His service. It must be 
conceded, that occasionally ἐν Κυρίῳ 
appears little more than a kind of quali- 
tative definition (comp. Rom. xvi. 8, 13, 
1 Cor. iv. 17, Phil. i. 14, al.) ; still the 
student cannot be too much put on his 
guard against the frigid and even unspir- 
itual interpretations into which Fritz. 
has been betrayed in his elaborate note 
(Rom. /. c. Vol. 11. p. 82 sq.) on this 
and the similar formula ἐν Χριστῷ. 
On the nature of this union with 
Christ compare Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. 
1πτι p. 702. ἧς ἐκλήϑητεϊ 
‘wherewith ye were called,’ ‘qua vocati 
estis,’ Clarom., Vulg., Goth.; ἧς here 
appy. standing for 7 (comp. 2 Tim. i. 9, 
but not 1 Cor. vii. 20 [De W.], as there 


84 


ἐκλήδητε, 


ἐν precedes), and so slightly violating 
the usual law of attraction, unless, fol- 
lowing the analogy of such phrases as 
κλῆσιν καλεῖν, TapakAnow mapak., We 
suppose the relative standing as usual 
for the accus. ἤν; compare Winer, Gr. § 
24.1, p. 189. De W. indeed denies the 
existence of such a phrase as κλῆσιν 
καλεῖν, but see Arrian, pict. p. 122 
(Raphel), καταισχύνειν τὴν κλῆσιν ἣν 
κέκληκεν. 

2. μετὰ πάσης ταπ.] ‘with all 
lowliness ;’ dispositions with which their 
moral walk was to be associated (comp. 
Col. iii. 12), μετὰ (‘ with, Vulg., Goth., 
not ‘in,’ Copt.) being used with ref. to 
the mental powers and dispositions with 
which an action is, as it were, accompa- 
nied; comp. Luke i. 39, 2 Cor. vii. 15, 
and see Winer, Gr. § 47. h. p. 337. Σὺν 
denotes rather coherence (Kriiger, Sprachl. 
§ 68. 13, 1), not uncommonly with some 
collateral idea of assistance ; compare 1 
Cor. v. 4. On the use of πάσης, 
comp. notes, ch. i. 8; and on the mean- 
ing of the late word ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘the 
esteeming of ourselves small, because we 
are so,’ ‘the thinking truly, and, because 
truly, therefore lowlily of ourselves,’ see 
Trench, Synon. ὃ xuit., and Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v., where several definitions 
of Chrysostom are cited. Most of these 
openly or tacitly ascribe to the ταπει- 
voppwy a consciousness of greatness 
(tam. ἐστίν, ὅταν μεγάλα Tis ἑαυτῷ 


᾽ 


συνειδὼς μηδὲν μέγα περὶ αὑτοῦ φαν- 
τάζηται); this, however, as Trench ob- 
serves, is alien to the true sense and 
spirit of the word. πρᾳύτητοΞ]) 
“meekness,’ in respect of God, and in the 
face of men; see Trench, Synon, ὃ 
xuit., Tholuck, Bergpr. (Matth. v. 5), 
p- 82 sq., and notes on Gal. vy. 23. The 
less definite meaning of ‘gentleness’ is 
appy. maintained by some of the Vy. 
(Vulg. ‘mansuetudine’ Goth. ‘qairrein’ 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 2. 


2 \ / , \ sl. \ 
μετα TAGNS ταπεινοφροσύνης και πρᾳυτήῆτος, μετὰ 


[comp. Lat. cicur], Arm., al.), and also 
by the Greek commentators (ἔσο ταπει- 
νὸς ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρᾳος, ἔστι γὰρ ταπεινὸν 
μὲν εἶναι, ὀξὺν δὲ καὶ ὀργίλον, Chrysost. ; 
compare Theophyl. on Gal. v. 3); the 
deeper and more biblical sense is, how- 
ever, distinctly to be preferred. A 
good general definition will be found in 
Stobeeus, Floril. 1. 1 (18). The 
reading πρᾳύτητος, though only sup- 
ported by BC; mss., is appy. to be pre- 
ferred to πραότητος (Rec., Lachm. with 
ADEFGL; majority of mss.), as the 
best attested form in the dialect of the 
New Test. see Tischend. Prolegom. p. L. 
μετὰ pakpodsupmtas] ‘with long suf- 
fering ;’ separate clause more fully elu- 
cidated by the following words, ἀνεχόμε- 
vot x. τ᾿ A. Two other constructions 
have been proposed; (a) the connection 
of μετὰ μακρ. with avex. (Est. Harl.) so 
as to form a single clause ; (>) the union 
of all the clauses in one single sentence. 
The objections to (a) are, (1) that avex. 
is the natural expansion of μετὰ μακρ., 
—(2) that undue emphasis must thus 
(owing to the position) be ascribed to 
μετὰ wakp.,— (3) that the parallelism of 
the participial clauses would be need- 
lessly violated; to the latter that the 
passage of the general ἀξίως περιπ.) into 
the special ἀνεχόμ. ἀλλ.) becomes sudden 
and abrupt, instead of being made easy 
and gradational by means of the inter- 
posed prepositional clauses ; comp. Mey. 
The fine word μακροϑυμία 
(‘ long-suffering,’ ‘forbearance,’ Goth. 
‘usbeisnai’), implies the reverse of ὀξυ- 
ϑυμία (James i. 19), and is well defined 
by Fritz. (Rom. τι. 4, Vol. 1. p. 98) as 
‘clementid, qua ire temperans, delictum 
non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit 
peenitendi locum relinquas.’ The gloss 
of Chrys. (on Cor. xiii. 4), μακρόϑυμος 
διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, ἔπειδὴ μακράν τινα καὶ 
μεγάλην ἔχει ψυχήν (compare Clarom. 


in loc. 


Cuap. IV. 3. 


EPHESIANS. 85 


μακροδυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγώπῃ, ἣἧ σπουδάζοντες 


‘magnanimitate’), is too inclusive and 
general; that of Beza, ‘irz cohibitione,’ 
too limited and special. ave x d- 
μενοι x. τ. A.| ‘forbearing one another 
in love;’ manifestation and exhibition of 
the μακροϑυμία; compare Col. iii. 13. 


. The relapse of the participle from its 


proper case into the nom. is here so per- 
fectly intelligible, and natural, that any 
supplement of ἐστὲ or γίνεσϑε (Heins., 
al.) must be regarded as wholly unneces- 
sary; see notes on ch. iii. 18, and Elsner, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 211 sq. ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
is referred by Lachm. and Olsh. to σπου- 
da¢ovres. Such a punctuation, though 
supported by Origen (Caten.), seems 
wholly inadmissible, as disturbing the 
symmetry of the two participial clauses, 
and throwing a false emphasis on ἐν 
ἀγάπῃ. 

3. σπουδάς. τηρεῖν] ‘using dili- 
gence to keep ;’ participial member paral- 
lel to the foregoing, specifying the inward 
feelings (Mey.) by which the ἀνέχεσϑαι 
is to be characterized, and the inward 
efforts by which it is to be promoted ; 
οὐκ ἀπόνως ἰσχύσομεν εἰρηνεύειν, Theoph. 
For two good discussions of this verse, 
though from somewhat different points 
of view, see Laud, Serm. νι. Vol. 1. p. 
155 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and Baxter, 
Works, Vol. xvi. p. 879 (ed. Orme). 
τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πν.] ‘the unity of 
the Spirit,’ scil. ‘wrought by the Spirit’ 
(τὴν ἑνότ., ἣν τὸ Πνεῦμα ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν, 
Theoph., comp. Chrysost., GQicum.), τοῦ 
Πν. being the gen. of the originating 
cause (Scheuerl. Synt., § 17.1, p. 125), 
not the possessive gen. (as appy. Origen, 
Caten.), or both united (as Stier, see 
Vol. 11. p. 18), neither of which seem 
here so pertinent; see notes on 1 Thess. 
i. 6, and on Col. i. 23. That the ref. is 
to the personal Holy Spirit, seems so 
clear that we may wonder how such 
able commentators as Calvin and Estius 


could regard τὸ Πν. as the human spirit, 
and acquiesce in an interpr. so frigid as 
‘animorum concordia,’ ‘animorum inter 
vos conjunctio.” De Wette, — whose 
own interpr. ‘die Einheit des kirchlichen 
Gemeingeistes’ (comp. Theod.-Mops., 
Πνεῦμ., τὸ ἀναγεννῆσαν σῶμα), is very 
far from satisfactory, urges ἑνότης πίσ- 
Tews, ver. 13 (compare Origen), but the 
two passages are by no means so closely 
analogous as to suggest any modifica- 
tion of the simple personal meaning here 
assigned to Πνεῦμα; see Laud, Serm. vt. 
Vol. 1. p. 162 (A. C. Libr.). ἐν 
Tw συνδέσμῳ THs εἰρήνη] ‘in 
the bond of peace;’ element or principle 
in which the unity is maintained, viz. 
‘peace ;’ τῆς εἰρήν. being not the gen. 
objecti (‘that which binds together, main- 
tains, peace,’ Riickert, ‘vinculum quo 
pax retinetur,’ Beng., scil. ἀγάπη, Col. 
iii. 14), but the gen. of identity or apposi- 
tion; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, p.470. The former 
interpretation is plausible, and appy. as 
ancient as the time of Origen (τῆς aya- 
ms auvdcovons κατὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἑνουμέ- 
vous, ap. Cram. Caten. p. 165), but de- 
rives very doubtful support from Col. 
l.c., where ἀγάπη is specified, and was 
perhaps only due to the assumption that 
ἐν was here instrumental (διά Cicum.), 
and that συνδ τῆς εἰρ. was a periphrasis 
for the agent (ἀγάπη) supposed to be 
referred to. Ἔν, however, correctly de- 
notes the sphere, the element in which the 
ἑνότης is to be kept and manifested (see 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 845), thus pre- 
serving its parallelism with ἐν in ver. 2, 
and conveying a very simple and _per- 
spicuous meaning: the Ephesians were 
to evince their forbearance in love, and 
to preserve the Spirit-given unity in the 
true bond of union, the ‘irrupta copula’ 
of peace. The etymological identity 
of σύνδεσμος and εἰρήνη must not be 


86 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 4, 5. 


A U fa 3 A ’ an 5 
τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης. 


ἐὲν σῶμα καὶ ἕν Πνεῦμα, casas καὶ ἐκλήϑδητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι 


τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν' 


pressed (Reiners, ap. Wolf) as the deri- 
vation of εἰρήνη from EIPQ ‘necto’ is 
less probable than from EIPQ ‘dico;’ 
see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 7, 
Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 799. 
4. ἐν σῶμα] ‘There is one body ;’ 
assertory declaration of the unity per- 
vading the Christian dispensation, de- 
signed to illustrate and enhance the fore- 
going exhortation; the simple verb ἐστί, 
not γίνεσϑε or ἐστέ (οἵπερ ἐστέ, Camer.), 
being appy. the correct supplement; see 
Winer, Gr., ὃ 64. 2, p. 546. The con- 
nection of thought between ver. 3 and 4 
is somewhat doubtful. That the verse 
is not directly hortatory, and connected 
with (Zachm.), dependent on (‘ut sitis,’ 
Syr. Est. 2), or in apposition to (‘exis- 
tentes,’ Est. 1) what precedes, seems 
clear from the parallelism with ver. 5 
and 6; still less does it introduce a 
reason for the previous statement by an 
ellipse of γάρ (Eadie), all such ellipses 
being wholly indemonstrable; ‘nulla in 
re magis pejusque errari quam in ellipsi 
particularum § solet,’ Herm. Viger Ap- 
pend 11. p. 701 (ed. Valpy). It seems 
then only to contain a simple assertion, 
the very unconnectedness of which adds 
weight and impressiveness, and seems 
designed to convey an echo of the former 
warning ; ‘remember,— there is one 
body, ete.;’ comp. Hofm. Sehrift. Vol. 
11. p. 108. In the explanation of 
the sentiment, the Greek commentators 
somewhat vacillate; we can, however, 
scarcely doubt that the σῶμα implies the 
whole community of Christians, the 
mystical body of Christ (ch. ii. 16, Rom. 
xii. 5, Col. i. 24, al.), and that the 
Πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit which dwells 
in the Church (Eadie), and by which 
the σῶμα is moved and vivified (1 Cor. 
xii, 13) ; comp. Jackson, Creed, xii. 3. 


διε ΄, ! ἢ ἃ ΄ 
εἷς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα: 


4, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 1, p. 249, and 
Wordsw. in loc. On this text, see a 
good treatise by Barrow, Works, Vol. 
Vil. p. 626 sq. καὺ ὦ 9] ‘evenas;’ 
illustration and proof of the unity, as 
more especially afforded by the unity of 
the hope in which they were called. On 
the later form καϑώς, see notes on Gal. 
lii. 6. καὶ ἐκλήϑητε ἐν μιᾷ 
ἐλπ.] ‘ye were also called in one hope,’ 
‘vocati estis in una spe,’ Clarom., 
Vulg., Arm.; καὶ marking the accord- 
ance of the calling with the previously- 
stated unity (‘unitas spiritus ex unitate 


spei noscitur,’ Cocc.), and ἐν being nei- _ 


ther equiv. to ἐπὶ (Chrys.) or eis (Riick.), 
nor even instrumental, but simply speci- 
fying the moral element in which as it 
were the κλῆσις took place; compare 
Winer, Gr., § 50. 5, p. 370. Meyer 
adopts the instrumental sense; as, how- 
ever, there are not here, as in Gal. i. 6 
(see notes), any prevailing dogmatical 
reasons for such an interpretation, and 
as the two remaining passages in which 
καλεῖν is joined with ἐν (1 Cor. vii. 15, 1 
Thess. iv. 7) admit a similar explana- 
tion, it seems most correct to adhere to 
the strict, and so to say, theological mean- 
ing of this important preposition; we 
were called ἐπ᾽ ἐλευϑερίᾳ (Gal. v. 13), 
and εἰς ζωήν αἰώνιον (1 Tim. vi. 12), 
but ἐν εἰρήνῃ (1 Cor. vii. 15), ἐν aye 
ασμῷ (1 Thess. iv. 7) and ἐν ἐλπίδι ; 
compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 15, p. 
146. τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν] ‘of 
your calling, sc. arising from your call- 
ing; κλήσεως being not the gen. of pos- 
session (Eadie, Alf.), but of the origin or 
originating cause; κοινὴ ἐστὶν ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς 
ἐκ τῆς κλήσεως γενομένη, Cicum.; see 
notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. 

5. εἷς Κύριο 95] ‘one Lord,’ se. Christ ; 
placed prominently forward, as the Head 


» 


ΓΑ 


Cuap. IV. 6. 


> 


EPHESIANS. ST 


\ A. 


6? Θ \ \ ‘ , ς \ ὃ \ ΄ ae) 
εἰς εος Και TAT) P πάντων, ὁ ETL TAUVTWMV καὶ OLA TTAVT@MV καὶ EV 


of His one body, the Church, and the 
one divine object toward whom faith is 
directed, and into whom all Christians 
are baptized ; comp. Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 
27, and for a good sermon on this text 
Barrow, Serm. xx11. Vol. v. p. 261 sq. 


"μία mlortes] ‘one faith;’ not the 


‘fides que creditur,’ and still less the 
‘regula fidei,’ Grot., —this meaning in 
the N. T. being extremely doubtful, see 
notes on Gal. i. 23, — but the ‘ fides qua 
creditur,’ the ‘fides salvifica,’ which was 
the same in its essence and qualities for 
all Christians (Mey.). That this, how- 
ever, must not be unduly limited to the 
feeling of the individual, sc. to faith in 
its utterly subjective aspect, seems clear 
from the use of μία, and the general 
context. As there is one Lord, so the 
μία πίστις is not only a subjective recog- 
nition of this eternal truth (Usteri, Lehrb. 
11. 1. 4, p. 238), but also necessarily 
involves a common objective profession 
of it; comp. Rom. x. 10; and see Stier, 
Vol. 1. p. 33, Pearson, Creed, Art. Iv. 
Vol. 1. p. 399 (ed. Burt.). év 
βάπτισμα] ‘one baptism;’ a still fur- 
ther ‘consequentia’ to εἷς Κύριος ; as 
there was one Lord and one faith in 
Him, so was there one and one only 
baptism into Him (Gal. iii. 27), one and 
one only inward element, one and one 
only outward seal. Commentators have 
dwelt, perhaps somewhat unprofitably, 
upon the reasons why no mention is 
made of the other sacrament, the εἷς 
ἄρτος (1 Cor. x. 17) of the Holy Com- 
munion. If it be thought necessary to 
assign any reason, it must certainly not 
be sought for in the mere historical fact 
(Mey.), that the Holy Communion was 
not at that time so separate and distinct 
in its administration (compare Bingham 
Antiq. xv. 7.6, 7, Waterland, Hucharist, 
Ch. τ. Vol. 1v. p. 475) as Holy Baptism, 
for the words of inspiration are for all 


times, but must be referred to the funda- 
mental difference between the two sacra- 
ments. The one is rather the symbol of 
union (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2, p. 284); the 
other, from its single celebration and 
marked individual reference, presents 
more clearly the idea of unity, — the idea 
most in harmony with the context; see 
Kahnis, Abend. p. 276, 249. 

6. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ] ‘one God 
and Father ;’ climactic reference to the 
eternal Father (observe the distinct men- 
tion of the three Persons of the blessed 
Trinity, ver. 4, 5, 6) in whom unity finds 
its highest exemplification ; ‘etiamsi bap- 
tizamur in nomen Patris, Filii, et Spiritus 
Sancti, et filium unum Dominum nomi- 
namus, tamen non credimus nisi in unum 
Deum,’ Coce. On this solemn designa- 
tion, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and for a dis- 
cussion of the title ‘Father,’ Pearson, 
Creed, Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 35 sq. (ed. 
Burt.), Barrow, Creed, Serm. x. Vol. 
Ivy. p. 493 sq. 6 ἐπὶ πάντων͵ 
‘who is over all;’ 6 κύριος καὶ ἐπάνω πάν- 
των, Chrysost.; the relation expressed 
seems that of simple sovereignty, not 
only spiritual (Calv.), but general and 
universal (δεσποτείαν σημαίνει, 'Theod.) ; 
comp. Rom. ix. 5, and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 50. 6, p. 370, where the associated 
reference to ‘protection’ (ed. 5), is now 
rightly excluded ; this would have been 
more naturally expressed by ὑπέρ; see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 28. It is unne- 
cessary to remark that the three clauses 
are no synonymous formule (Koppe), 
but that the prepositions mark with scru- 
pulous accuracy the threefold relation in 
which God stands to his creatures; see 
notes on Gal. i. 1, and Winer, Gr. l. c., 
and Stier, Vol. 1. p. 44. The gen- 
der of πάντων is doubtful. It seems 
arbitrary (Clarom., Vulg.) to regard the 
first πάντων and πᾶσιν as masc., the sec- 
ond πάντων as neuter, as there is nothing 


88 


Further, Christ gives His 
grace in measure to each, 
as the Scripture testifies. 


in the context or in the meaning of the 
prepp. to require such a limitation ; the 
gender of one may with propriety fix 
that of the 
tainly seems masculine, πάντων may be 
assumed of the same gender; so Copt., 
which by the omission of hob seems here 
to express a definite opinion. In Rom. 
ix. 5, πάντων is commonly (and prop- 
erly) interpreted as neuter (opp. to Fritz. 
in loc. Vol. 11. 272), there being no lim- 
itation or restriction implied in the con- 
text. The reading is very doubtful ; 
ἡμῖν (Rec. duty with mss.; Chrys. com- 
ment., al.) is added to πᾶσιν with DEF 
GKL; mss.; Clarom, Vulgate, Syr. 
(both), Goth.; Did., Dam., al.,— but 
seems more rightly omitted with ABC ; 
10 mss.; Copt., ith. (both); Ath., 
Greg.-Naz., Chrys. (text), al., as a not 
improbable gloss; so Lachm., Tisch., 
and appy. the majority of recent edi- 
tors. 


rest. As πᾶσιν then cer- 


διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν) 
‘through all and in all” These two last 
clauses are less easy to interpret, on ac- 
count of the approximation in meaning 
Of these διὰ is 
referred (a) by the Greek expositors to 
God (the Father), in respect of his provi- 


of the two prepositions. 


dence (ὁ προνοῶν καὶ διοικῶν, Chrysost.) ; 
(b) by Aquinas (ap. Est.), al, to God 
the Son, ‘per quem omnia facta sunt,’ 
comp. Olsh., — a very inverted interpre- 
tation; (6) by Calvin, Meyer, al. ‘to 
the pervading charismatic influence and 
presence of God by means of the Holy 
Spirit’ This last interpretation seems 
at first sight most in unison with the 
strict meaning of both prepp , διὰ point- 
ing to the influence of the Spirit which 
passes through (‘transcurrit,’ Jerome) and 
pervades all hearts [operative motion], ἐν 
His indwelling (6 οἰκῶν, Chrysost.) and 
informing influence [operative rest] ; see 
ed. 1; still as the three Persons of the 
blessed Trinity have been so lately spec- 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 7. 


πᾶσιν. ‘Evi δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις 


ified, as references to this holy Truth 
seem very noticeably to pervade this Ep. 
(see Stier, Eph. Vol. 1. p. 35), and as 
the ancient interpr. of Irenzeus (‘super 
omnia (1) quidem Pater, ... . per omnia 
(4) autem Verbum,.....in omnibus 
autem nobis Spiritus,’ Her. v. 18; com- 
pare Athan. ad. Serap. ὃ 28, Vol. 1. p. 
677, ed. Bened.), seems to have a just 
claim on our attention, it seems best and 
safest to maintain that allusion in the 
present case (opp. to Hofm. Schriftb. 
Vol. 1. p. 184), and to refer διὰ πάντων 
to the redeeming and reconciling influ- 
ences of the Eternal Son which pervade 
all hearts, while ἐν πᾶσιν, as above, 
marks the indwelling Spirit; see Stier 
in loc., and comp. Waterl. Def. of Que- 
ries, Vol. 1. p. 280. 

7. ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ judy] ‘ But to 
each of us,’ ‘to each one individually ;’ 
further inculeation of this unity in what 
might at first sight have seemed to mili- 
tate against it: δὲ neither being transi- 
tional (comp. Eadie), nor encountering 
any objection (Grot., comp. Theoph.), 
but merely suggesting the contrast be- 
tween the individual and the πάντες pre- 
viously mentioned (ver. 6). In the 
general distribution of gifts (implied 
in the 6 Θεὸς ἐν πᾶσιν), no single 
individual is (1 Cor. xii. 
11, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ) ; each has his 
peculiar gift, each can and ought to 
contribute his share to preserving ‘the 
unity of the Spirit; ἡ so in effect Chrys., 
who in the main has rightly felt and 
explained the connection, τὰ πάντων 


overlooked 


κεφαλαιωδέστερα, φησί, κοινὰ πάντων ἐστί, 
τὸ βάπτισμα κ. τ. A. εἰ δέ τι ὁ δεῖνα 
πλέον ἔχει ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι, μὴ ἄλγει; 
see also Theod.-Mops. in (oc. 

ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρι] ‘the grace was given,’ 
se. by our Lord after His ascension ; 
χάρις, however, not being simply equiv- 
alent to χάρισμα (= " gift of grace, Peile), 


σαι ΕΝ 8. 


EPHESIANS. 89 


κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. "“ διὸ λέγει ᾿Δναβὰς 


but, as De W. rightly observes, retaining 
some shade of a transitive force, and 
denoting the energizing grace which 
manifests itself in the peculiar gift; 
comp. Rom. xii. 6. The omission 
of the art. (Lachm. with BDIFGL; 5 
mss.; Dam.) is due appy. to an error in 
transcription, caused by the preceding ἡ, 
by which it became absorbed, and is 
retained by Tisch. (with ACD3EK; 
great majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., 
al.), and most recent editors. 

κατὰ τὸ μέτρον k. τ. λ.7 ‘according 
to the measure of the gift of Christ, scil. 
‘in proportion to the amount of the gift 
which Christ gives,’ καϑὼς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
δωρεὰν ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν 6 δεσπότης ἐπεμέ- 
τρῆσε Χριστός, Theod.-Mops.; δωρεᾶς 
being thus a simple possessive gen. (the 
measure which the gift has, which be- 
longs to and defines the gift), and Χρισ- 
τοῦ the gen. of ablation (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 
451), or, more specifically, of the agent, 
the giver (comp. δωρεὰς χάριτος, Plato, 
Leg. vi11. 844 D, and see notes on 1 
Thess. i. 6) not of the receiver (Oeder 
ap. Wolf),— an idea which is in no sort 
of harmony with the context, ἔδωκεν 
δόματα, ver. 8; see 2 Cor. ix. 15. Stier 
very infelicitously (in point of grammar) 
endeavors to unite both. 

8. διὸ λέγει] ‘ On which account He 
saith ;? on account of this bestowal of 
the gift of Christ, and that in differing 
measures, — ὅτι, φησίν, ἣ χάρις δωρεά 
ἐστι τοῦ Χρ. καὶ αὐτὸς μετρήσας ἔδωκεν, 
ἄκουε, φησί, τοῦ Δαυίδ, (οπιπι. The 
difficulties of this verse, both in regard 
to the connection, the source, and the 
form of the citation, are very great, and 
must be separately, though briefly no- 
ticed. (1) Connection. There is clearly 
no parenthesis; verse 8 is to be closely 
connected with verse 7, and regarded as 
a scriptural confirmation of its asser- 
tions. These assertions involve two 

12 


separate moments of thought, (a) the 
primary, that each individual has his 
peculiar and appropriate gifts, further 
elucidated and exemplified, ver. 11; (2) 
the secondary, that these gifts are con- 
Jerred by Christ. The intrinsic, though 
not so much contextual importance of 
(Ὁ) induces the Apostle to pause and 
add a special confirmation from Scrip- 
ture. The cardinal words are thus so 
obviously ἐδόϑη, δωρεά, ἔδωκε δόματα, 
that it is singular how so good a com- 
mentator as Olsh. could have supposed 
the stress of the citation to be on τοῖς 
ἄνῶρ. (2) The source of the cita- 
tion is not any Christian hymn (Storr, 
Opusc. 111. p. 809), but Psalm Ixvii., 
—a psalm of which the style, age, pur- 
port, and allusions have been most dif- 
ferently estimated and explained (for 
details see Reuss, /eviti. Psalm), but 
which may, with high probability, be 
deemed a hymn of victory in honor of 
Jchova, the God of Battles (Hengst. 
opp. to J. Olsh.), of high originality 
(Hitzig opp. to Ewald), and composed 
by David on the taking of Rabbah 
(Hengst. opp. to Reuss, J. Olsh.). We 
have therefore no reason whatever to 
entertain any doubt of its inspired and 
prophetic character; compare Phillips, 
Psal.ns, Vol. 11. p. 79. (3) The 
form of citation is the real difficulty ; 
the words of the Psalm are anpd 
DIS2 rhs, in LXX, ἔλαβες δόματα 
ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ [-ποις, Alex., Compl., Ald 1. 
The difference in St. Paul’s citation is 
palpable, and, we are bound in candor 
to say, does not appear diminished by 
any of the proposed reconciliations ; for 
even assuming that -7> = ‘danda sum- 
sit,’ ‘he took only to give’ (comp. Gen. 
xvi. 9, xviii. 5, xxvii. 13, xlii 16, and 
see Surenhus. BiBA. Καταλλ., p. 585), 
still the nature of the gifts, which in one 
case were reluctant (see Hengst.), in the 


90 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. LY. 8. 


els ὕψος ἡχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς avSpo- 


other spontaneous, appears essentially dif- 
ferent. We admit, then, frankly 
and freely, the verbal difference, but 
remembering that the Apostle wrote 
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
we neither imperfect 
memory, precipitation (Riick.), arbitrary 
change (Calv., compare Theod.-Mops.), 
accommodation (Morus), nor Rabbinical 
interpretation (Meyer), but simply the 
fact, that the Psalm, and esp. ver. 18, 
had a Messianic reference, and bore 
within it a further, fuller, and deeper 
meaning. This meaning the inspired 
Apostle, by a slight change of language, 
and substitution of ἔδωκε for the more 
dubious -p> succinctly, suggestively, 
and authoritatively unfolds; comp. notes 
on Gal. iii. 16. We now proceed to the 
grammatical details. λέγει] ‘He 
saith,’ sc. 6 Θεός, not ἣ ypaph. This lat- 
ter nominative is several times inserted 
by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, 1x. 17, x. 11, 
Gal. iv. 30, 1 Tim. v. 18), but is not 
therefore to be regularly supplied when- 
ever there is an ellipsis (Bos, £llips. 
p- 54), without reference to the nature 
of the passage. The surest, and in fact 
only guide, is the context; where that 
affords no certain hint, we fall back upon 
the natural subject, 6 Θεός, whose words 
the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 
16. ἀναβὰς eis bwWos| ‘ Having 
ascended on hiyh;’? not ‘ascendens,’ Cla- 
rom., Vulgate, but ‘quum ascendisset,’ 
Beza, — the reference being obviously to 
Christ’s ascent into heaven (Barrow, 
Creed, Vol. v1. p. 358, Pearson, Creed, 
Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 323, ed. Burt.), and 
the aor. part. here being temporal, and, 
according to its more common use, de- 
noting an action preceding [never, in the 
N. T. subsequent to, see Winer, Gr. § 45. 
6. b, p. 816] that of the finite verb; see 
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 56.10. 1. Our Lord, it may 


recognize here 


be urged, gave the Holy Spirit before 
his ascension (John xx. 22); but this 
was only an ‘arrha Pentecostes,’ Beng., 
a limited (Alford), and preparatory gift 
of the Holy Spirit; see Liicke in Joc. 
On this text, as cited from Psalm Ixviii., 
see a good sermon by Andrewes, Serm. 
vir. Vol. 111. p. 221 (A. C. Libr.). 

ἠχμαλώτ. αἰχμαλωσίαν) ‘He led 
captivity captive, ‘captivam duxit capti- 
vitatem,’ Clarom., Vulg.; the abstract, 
aixuadwo. being used for the concrete 
αἰχμαλώτους (comp. Numbers xxxi. 12, 
9. Chron’ xxvilis 11.189; and see vex 
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 353), and serving by its con- 
nection with the cognate verb to enhance 
and slightly intensify ; compare Winer, 
Gr. § 32. 2. p. 201, and see the copious 
list of exx. in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 498 
sq. Who constituted this αἰχμαλωσία 
has been much discussed. That the 
captives were not (a) Satan’s prisoners 
(ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ διαβόλου τυραν- 
vida κατεχομένους, Theod.-Mops., comp. 
Just. Mart. Trypho, ὃ 39, p. 128, ed. 
Otto, and Theod. zn loc.) seems clear 
from the subsequent mention of ἀνϑρώ- 
mots, Which (though not so in the origi- 
nal) seems here to refer to a different 
class to the captives. Nor (b) can they 
be the souls of the righteous in Hades 
(Estius, compare Evang. Nicod. § 24, in 
Thilo, Codex Apocryph. p. 747), as, set- 
ting aside other reasons (‘captivos non 
duci in libertatem, sed hostes, in captivi- 
tatem,’ Calov.), the above interpr. of the 
part. ἀναβὰς seems seriously opposed to 
such a view. If, however, (c) we regard 
‘the captivity’ as captive and subjugated 
enemies (Meyer, De W.), the enemies 
of Christ,— Satan, Sin, and Death, — 
we preserve the analogy of the compari- 
son (compare Alf.), and gain a full and 
forcible meaning: so rightly Chrysost., 
αἰχμάλωτον yap τὸν τύραννον ἔλαβε [not 
κατήργησε, Which with regard to Death 


Cuap. IV. 9. 


EPHESIANS. 91 


9 Ν δὲ ’ E ἌΣ 5 Ψ Nae, \ , ’ \ / 
ποις. ὃ τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ OTL καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατωτερα 


is yet future, 1 Cor. xv. 26] τὸν διάβολον 
λέγω καὶ τὸν ϑάνατον, kal Thy ἀράν, καὶ 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ; comp. Cicum, 3, Theoph. 
ἔδωκεν δόματα] ‘He gave gifts,’ sc. 
spiritual gifts; comp. ἐδόϑη ἡ χάρις, ver. 
7, and as a special and particular illus- 
tration, Acts ii. 33. The reading is 
very doubtful. Tisch. (ed. 7) prefixes 
καὶ with BC!(C?)D3KL; nearly all mss. ; 
Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Orig., Chrys., 
Theod., al. Ree., Alf.; Lachm. on the 
contrary omits with AC?D!EFG; mss.; 
Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Iren. (interpr.), 
Tertull., al. (Tisch. ed. 2); and appy. 
rightly, as an insertion for the sake of 
keeping up the connection seems more 
probable than a conformation to the 
LXX. where the καὶ is omitted. 

9. τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη) ‘Now (δὲ here 
marking a slight explanatory transition, 
Hartung, Partik., δέ, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 
165) that He ascended,’ scil. ‘now the 
predication of His ascent;’ not ‘the 
word ἀνέβη, —as ἀναβάς, not ἀνέβη, pre- 
cedes. ΤῸ evince still more clearly the 
truth and correctness of the Messianic 
application of the words just cited, St. 
Paul urges the antithesis implied by 
ἀνέβη, Viz. κατέβη, a predication only 
applicable to Christ; compare Hofm. 
Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 344, where this 
and the preceding verses are fully inves- 
tigated. τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ κ.τ.λ.] 
‘what is τὲ (‘what does it imply,’ Matth. 
ix. 13, John xvi. 17, comp. notes on Gal. 
iii. 19), except that He also (as well as 
ἀνέβη) descended ;’ the tacit assumption, 
as Meyer observes, being clearly this, — 
that He who is the subject of the cita- 
tion is One whose seat was heaven, — no 
man, but a giver of gifts to men; espe- 
cially comp. John iii. 13. The 
insertion of πρῶτον after κατέβη (Rec. 
with BC?KL; most mss.; Aug., Vulg., 
Goth.; Theod., al.) seems clearly to 
have arisen from an explanatory gloss, 


and that of μέρη after κατώτερα, though 
better supported (Rec., Lachm., with 
ABCD°KL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., 
al.) to be still fairly attributable to the 
same origin. eis τὰ κατώτερα 
τῆς γῆ 5] ‘to the lower (parts) of the 
earth, ‘in loca que subter terram,’ Copt., 
‘subter terram,’ ith. This celebrated 
passage has received several different 
interpretations, two only of which, how- 
ever, deserve serious consideration, and 
between which it is extremely difficult to 
decide; (a) the ancient explanation, 
according to which τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς 
ΞΞ- τὰ καταχϑόνια, and imply ‘Hades’ 
(ποῦ δὲ κατέβη ; εἰς τὸν ἅδην: τοῦτον γὰρ 
κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς λέγει, κατὰ τὴν 
κοινὴν ὑπόνοιαν, Theoph.), the gen. not 
being dependent on the comparative 
(Riick., — still less compatible with his 
insertion of μέρη), but being the regular 
possessive gen.; (b) the more modern 
interpretation, adopted by the majority 
of recent commentators, according to 
which τῆς γῆς is regarded as the gen. of 
apposition (see esp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 59. 8, 
p: 410), and the expression as equivalent 
to εἰς τὴν Katwtépay ynv. Both sides 
claim the comparative κατώτερα, --- (the 
VaN1 ΠῚ pressed by Olshaus. is 
appy- equally indeterminate with the 
Greek), — the one as suggesting a com- 
parison with the earth, ‘a lower depth 
than the earth;’ the other as suggested 
by the comparison with the heaven (Acts 
li. 19, John viii. 23, — but in this latter 
passage κάτω reaches lower than the 
earth, Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 447 
sq.); comp. Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 
345. These arguments must be nearly 
set off against one another, as the posi- 
tive would have been most natural in 
the latter case, the superlative perhaps 
in the former. As, however, the superl. 
would have tended to fix the locality 
(comp. Nehem. iv. 13) more detinitely 


92 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 10. 


a (oe ἘΝ 1 & / awh 2 Ἀν ed \ ς ΄ δι 
τῆς γῆς: ὁ καταβάς, αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πὰν- 


than was suitable to the present context, 
and as the use of the term ᾷδης would 
have marred the antithesis (γῆ opp. to 
οὐρανός), it does not seem improbable 
that the more vague comparative was 
expressly chosen, and that thus its use is 
more in favor of (a) than (b). When to 
this we add the full antithesis that seems 
to lie in ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, ver. 10 
(‘sublimiora cxelorum’ opp. to ‘ inferiora 
terrarum,’ Tertull.), surely more than a 
mere expansion of eis ὕψος (Winer, 
Mey.), and also observe the sort of 
exegetical necessity which ἵνα πληρώσῃ 
τὰ πάντα (ver. 10) seems to impose 
on us of giving the fullest amplitude to 
every expression, we still more incline 
to (a), and with Ireneus (Her. v. 31, 
comp. Iv. 22), Tertullian (de Animd, c. 
55), and the principal ancient writers 
(see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 
269, and ref. on Vol. 11. p. 195, ed. 
Burt.), recognize in these words an allu- 
sion, not to Christ’s death and _ burial 
(Chrys., Theod.), but definitely to His 
descent into hell; so also Olsh., Stier, 
Alf., Wordsw., and Baur (Paulus, p. 
431), but it is to be feared that the judg- 
ment of the last writer is not unbiassed, 
as he urges the ref. as a proof of the 
gnostic origin of the Epistle. On 
this clause and on ver. 10 see a good 
sermon by South, Serm. (Posth.) 1. Vol. 
111. p. 169 sq. (Lond. 1843), and for a 
general investigation of the doctrine of 
Christ’s descent into hell, aud its connec- 
tion with the last things, Guder, Lehre 
von der Erscheinung J. C. unter den Tod- 
ten, Bern, 1853. 

10.6 tataBdas| ‘ He that descended ;’ 
emphatic, as its position shows; the ab- 
sence of any connecting or illative parti- 
cle gives a greater force and vigor to the 
conclusion. It may be observed that 
αὐτὸς is not ‘the same,’ Auth.,—as no 
instance of an omission of the article, 


though occasionally found in the earlier 
(Herm. Opusec. Vol. 1. p. 332), and fre- 
quently in Byzantine authors, occurs in 
the N. T., but is simply the emphatic 
‘ He,’ — od γὰρ ἄλλος κατελήλυϑε καὶ 
ἄλλος ἀνελήλυϑεν, Theod.; see Winer, 
Gr. § 22. 4. obs. p. 135. πάντων 
τῶν οὐραν ὧν] ‘all the heavens,’ ‘ clos 
omnes penetravit ascendendo, usque ad 
summum cxlum,’ Est.; ὑψηλότερος τῶν 
οὐρανῶν, Heb. vii. 26, compare ib. iv. 4. 
There is no necessity whatever to con- 
nect this expression with the ‘seven 
heavens’ of the Jews (comp. Wetst. on 
2 Cor. xii. 2, Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, 
p- 387); the words, both here and in 
Heb. Ul. cc., have only a simple and gen- 
eral meaning, and are well paraphrased 
by Bp. Pearson, —‘ whatsoever heaven 
is higher than all the rest which are 
called heavens, into that place did He 
ascend,’ Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 320 
(ed. Burton). ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ 
πάντα] ‘in order that He miyht fill all 
> more general purpose involved 
in the more special ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς 
avspwmos (ver. 8), though structurally 
dependent on the preceding participle. 
The subjunctive with ἵνα, after a past 
tense, is correctly used in the present 
case, to denote an act that still contin- 
ues ; see Herm. Viger, No. 350, and esp. 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618, who has 
treated this and similar uses of the subj. 
with ἵνα after preterites, with considera- 
ble acumen; for exx. see Gayler, Partic. 
Neg. p. 176, who has also correctly seized 
the general principle, ‘subjunctivum usur- 
pari si preevalet consilium, aut respectus 
ad eventum habendus,’ p. 165. Great 
caution, however, must be used in apply- 
ing these principles to the N. T., as the 
general and prevailing use of the subj. 
both in the N. T. and in later writers 
makes it very doubtful whether the finer 
distinction of mood was in all such cases 


things ; 


Cuap. IV. 11. 


[οἷ > A “ 
των τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα. 


He appointed divers min- 


EPHESIANS. 93 


A 
1 Καὶ αὐτὸς 


ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν a ἮΝ ὺς δὲ 
istering orders, till we all ν TOUS μεν ATTOOTOAOUS, TOUS OE προφήτας, 
come to the unity of faith, and in truth and love grow up into Christ, the head of the living body, the 


Church. 


as the present distinctly felt and in- 
tended. 
to limit πᾶντα πληροῦν, the solemn predi- 
cate of the Deity (Jerem. xxiii. 22, see 
Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775), to 
the gift of redemption (Riick.), or to 
confine the comprehensive τὰ πάντα to 
the faithful (Grot.), or to the church of 
Jews and Gentiles (Meier) ; the expres- 
sion is perfectly unrestricted, and refers 
not only to the sustaining and ruling 
power (τῆς δεσποτείας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνεργείας, 
Chrys.), but also to the divine presence 
(‘praesentia et operatione sua se ipso,’ 
Beng.) of Christ. The doctrine of the 
ubiquity of Christ’s Body derives no 
support from this passage (Form. Con- 
cord. p. 767), as there is here no reference 
to a diffused and ubiquitous corporeity, 
but to a pervading and energizing omni- 
presence ; compare Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 
390, Vol. 11. p. 139, and notes on ch. i. 
20. The true doctrine may perhaps be 
thus briefly stated :— Christ is perfect 
God, and perfect and glorified man; as 
the former he is present everywhere, as 
the latter he can be present anywhere ; 
see Jackson, Creed, Book x1. 3, and 
comp. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vi. p. 164- 

1l. «kat ἰοῦ τ 65] ‘and He,’ ‘jah 
silba,’ Gothic; ἐμφατικῶς δὲ εἶπε τὸ, 
αὐτός, Theophyl. There is here no αἱ- 
rect resumption of the subject of ver. 7, 
as if ver. 8—10 were merely parenthet- 
ical, but a regression to it, while at the 
same time the αὐτὸς is naturally and 
emphatically linked on to the αὐτὸς in 
the preceding verse. This return to a 
subject, without disturbing the harmony 
of the immediate connection or the nat- 
ural sequence of thought, constitutes one 
of the high excellences, but at the same 
time one of the difficulties in the style of 
the great Apostle. ἔδωκ εν] ‘gave,’ 


It is not necessary either 


‘dedit,’ Clarom., Vulg., al.; not merely 
Hebraistic (3742, Olsh.), and equivalent 
to ἔϑετο (Acts xx. 28, 1 Cor. xii. 28), 
‘dedit Ecclesi id est posuit in Eccl.’ 
(Est.), but in the ordinary and regular 
meaning of the word, and in harmony 
with ἔδόϑη, ver. 7, δόματα, ver. 8; comp. 
notes on ch, ii. 22. ἀποστόλου 5] 
‘ Apostles, —in the highest and most 
special sense ; comp. notes on Gal. i. 1. 
The chief characteristics of an Apostle 
were an immediate call from Christ 
(compare Gal. i. 1), a destination for all 
lands (Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 28), 
and a special power of working miracles 
(2 Cor. xii. 12); see Eadie zn loc., who 
has grouped together, with proof texts, 
the essential elements of the Apostolate. 
mpoontas| ‘Prophets,’ —not only in 
the more special sense (as Agabus, Acts 
xi. 27), but in the more general one of 
preachers and expounders, who spoke 
under the zmmedzate impulse and influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, and were thus 
to be distinguished from the δίδάσκαλοι ; 
ὃ μὲν προφητεύων πάντα ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύμα- 
τος φϑέγγεται: 6 δὲ διδάσκων ἐστὶν ὅπου 
καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας διαλέγεται, Chrys. 
on 1 Cor. ν. 28; see Thorndike, Relig. 
Assemblies, ch. v. 1 sq. Vol. 1. p. 182 sq. 
(A. C. Libr.), and comp. notes on ch. ii. 
20. εὐαγγελιστάΞ]) ‘ Evange- 
lists,’ —not τοὺς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γραψάντας 
(Cicum., Chrys. 2), but τοὺς εὐαγγελι- 
(ouévous (Chrys. 1), preachers of the Gos- 
pel who περιϊόντες ἐκήρυττον (Theod.), 
and yet, as μὴ περιϊόντες πανταχοῦ 
(Chrys.), were distinguished from the 
Apostles, to whom they acted as subor- 
dinates and missionaries ; compare Acts 
viii. 14, and see Thorndike, Relig. As- 
sembl. 1v. 87, Vol. 1. p. 176, ib. Right of 
Church, 11. 30, Vol. 1. p. 451, Hofim. 
Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 249. 


94 


\ \ 5 7 \ \ / oN 7 
τοὺς δὲ evayyertaTas, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας Kal διδασκάλους, 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 12. 


12 ΑΝ 
σρος 


a e ’ ” / > > Ν a 
τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν TOD 


ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλου 5] ‘Pas- 
tors and Teachers.’ It has been doubted 
whether these words denote different 
classes, or are different names of the 
same class. The absence of the disjunc- 
tive τοὺς δὲ (arbitrarily inserted in Syr. 
but altered in Syr.-Phil.) seems clearly 
to show that both mom. and διδάσκ. had 
some common distinctions, — probably 
that of being stationary rather than mis- 
sionary, οἱ καϑήμενοι καὶ περὶ Eva τόπον 
ἠσχολημένοι, Chrysost. — which plainly 
separated them from each of the preced- 
ing classes. Thus far they might be said 
to form one class; but that the individu- 
als who composed it bore either or both 
names indifferently, is very doubtful. 
The ποιμένες (a term probably including 
ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι, Fritz. Fritzsch. 
Opusc. p. 43 sq.) might be, and perhaps 
always were διδάσκαλοι (comp. 1 Tim. 
ill. 2, Tit. i. 9, Martyr. Polyc. § 16, see 
Thorndike, Selig. Assembl. 1v. 40, Vol. 
I. p. 170), but it does not follow that the 
converse was true. The χάρισμα of 
κυβέρνησις is so distinct from that of 
διδασκαλία, that it seems necessary to 
recognize in the dddon. a body of men 
(searcely a distinct class) who had the 
gift of διδαχή, but who were not invested 
with any administrative powers and au- 
thority ; see esp. Hooker, Hecl. Pol. v. 
78. 8, and compare Neander, Planting, 
Vol. 1. p. 149 (Bohn). 

12. πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν κ. 
τ. Δ.} ‘with a view to the perfecting of the 
saints, for the work of ministration, for the 
building up of the body of Christ ;’ more 
ultimate and more immediate end of the 
gifts specified in the preceding verse. It 
is extremely difficult to fix the exact 
shade of meaning which these prepp. 
are intended to convey. It seems clear, 
however, (a) that there is no ‘ trajection,’ 
Grot.;— nor again (b) that the three 


members are to be regarded as merely 
parallel, and codrdinately dependent on 
ἔδωκε (ἕκαστος οἰκοδομεῖ, Exact. καταρ- 
τίζει, ἕκαστ. διακονεῖ, Chrys.), for πρὸς 
and εἰς must thus be regarded as synony- 
mous (Syr., Goth, Arm); and though 
St. Paul studied prepositional variations 
(see Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372), it still 
does not appear from the exx. usually 
cited that he did so except for the sake 
of definition, limitation, or presentation 
of the subject in a fresh point of view; 
see notes on Gal. i. 1. Moreover, as 
Mey. justly observes, the second mem- 
ber, εἰς ἔργον κ. τ. A., would thus much 
more naturally and logically stand first. 
It also seems (c) nearly equally unsatis- 
factory, with /Eth. (expressly; Vulg., 
Clarom., Copt. are equally ambiguous 
with the Greek), De W., al., to connect 
eis—eis closely with πρός, as we are 
thus compelled to give διακονία the less 
usual, and here (after the previous ac- 
curate definitions) extremely doubtful 
meaning of ‘christliche Dienstleitung,’ 
De W., ‘genus omnium functionum in 
Ecclesia,’ Aret.; see below. It seems, 
then (d) best and most consonant with 
the fundamental (ethical) meaning of 
the prepositions to connect eis—els with 
ἔδωκε, and,—as eis, with the idea of 
destination, frequently involves that of 
attainment (see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 625. 3, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 68. 21.5, and comp. Hand, 
Tursell. ‘in, 111. 28, Vol. 111. 23), — to 
regard eis—eis as two parallel members 
referring to the more immediate, πρὸς to 
the more ultimate and final purpose of 
the action ; comp. Rom. xv. 2, ἀρεσκέτω 
εἰς τὸ ἀγαϑὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν, Which seems 
to admit a similar explanation, and see 
notes on Philem. 5. For distinctions 
between eis, πρός, and ἐπί see notes on 2 
Thess. ii. 4, and between εἰς, πρός, and 
κατά, notes on Tit. 1.1. We may thus 


Cnap. IV. 13. 


EPHESIANS. 95 


7 A , A 3 , [ , 
σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ™ μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς 


\ € td fol , rn la r la) la) 
τὴν EVOTHTA τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως TOD υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
a 


paraphrase: ‘He gave apostles, etc., to 
fulfil the work of the ministry and to 
build up the body of Christ, His object 
being to perfect his. saints;’ compare 
Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 109, where 
the same view is practically maintained. 
τὸν καταρτισμόν] ‘the perfecting,’ 
τὴν τελείωσιν, Theophyl.; comp. κατάρ- 
τισι, 2 Cor. xiii. 9; the nature of this 
(definite) perfecting is explained ver. 13. 
The primary (ethical) meaning of καταρ- 
τίζειν, ‘reconcinnare’ (Rost τι. Palm, 
Lex. s. v.}, appears only in Gal. vi. 1 
(comp. notes) ; in all other passages in 
the N. T. of ethical reference (e. g. Luke 
vi. 40, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Heb. 
xiii. 21, 1 Pet. vy. 10), the secondary 
meaning, ‘to make &ptuos,’ ‘to make 
perfect, complete’ (τελειοῦν, Hesych.), 
appears to be the prevailing meaning ; 
compare καταρτίζειν τριήρεις, Diod. Sic. 
XII. 70, see exx. in Schweigh, Lez. 
Polyb. s. vy. Any allusion to ‘the ac- 
complishment of the number of the 
elect,’ Pelag. (compare Burial Service), 
would here be wholly out of place. 

ἔργον διακονία 5] ‘the work of (the) 
ministry ;’ scil. ‘for the duties and func- 
tions of διάκονοι in the Church.’ As the 
meaning of both these words has been 
unduly strained, we may remark briefly 
that ἔργον is not pleonastic (see Winer, 
Gr. § 65.7, p. 541), or in the special 
sense of ‘building’ (compare 1 Cor. iii. 
13), but has the simple meaning of ‘ busi- 
ness,’ ‘function’ (1 Tim. iii. 1), — not 
‘res perfecta,’ but ‘res gerenda,’ in exact 
parallelism with the use of οἰκοδομή. 
Again, διακονία is not ‘service’ gen- 
erally, but, as its prevailing usage in the 
N. T.. (Rom. xi..13, 2. Cor. iv. 1, al.) 
and especially the present context sug- 
gest, “spiritual service of an official na- 
ture ;’ see Meyer in loc., Hofm. Schrifib. 
Vol. 11. 2, p. 109. The absence of both 


articles has been pressed (Eadie, Peile), 
but appy. unduly ; διακονία may possibly 
have been left studiedly anarthrous in 
reference to the ditferent modes of exer- 
cising it alluded to in ver. 11, and the 
various spiritual wants of the Church 
(Hamm.); ἔργον, however, seems clearly 
definite in meaning, though by the prin- 
ciple of correlation (Middleton, Art. 111. 
3, 6) it is necessarily anarthrous in form. 
οἰκοδ. τοῦ σώματοϑ»])] ‘building up 
of the body,’ parallel to, but at the same 
time more nearly defining the nature of 
the ἔργον. The article is not required 
(as with καταρτ.), as it was not any abso- 
lute, definite process of edifying, but 
edifying generally that was the object. 
The observation which some commenta- 
tors make on ‘the confusion of meta- 
phors’ is nugatory ; as τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Xp. 
has a distinct metaphorical sense, so has 
oikodouyn. On the nature of Christian 
οἰκοδομή, see Nitzsch, Theologie, § 39, 
Vol. 1. p. 205. 

15. μέχρι καταντήσωμ εν] ‘until 
we come to, arrive at;’ specification of 
the time up to which this spiritual con- 
stitution was designed to last. Several 
recent commentators (Harl., Meyer, al.) 
notice the omission of ἂν as giving an 
air of less uncertainty to the subj.; see 
notes on Gal. iii. 19. As a general prin- 
ciple this is of course right (see Herm. 
Partic. ἄν, 11. 9, p. 109 sq., Hartung, 
Partik. ty, 3, Vol. 11. p. 291 sq.); we 
must be cautious, however, in applying 
the rule in the N. 'T., as the tendency of 
latter Greek to the nearly exclusive use 
of the subj., and esp. to the use of these 
temporal particles with that tense, with- 
out ἄν, is very discernible; see Winer, 
Gr. § 41. 3, p. 265. The use of the 
subj. (the mood of conditioned but ob- 
jective possibility), not fut. (as Chrys.), 
shows that the καταντᾶν is represented 


90 


EPHESIANS. 


Crip sryes: 


εἰς ἄνδρω τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας TOD πληρώματος Tod, Χρισ- 


not only as the eventual, but as the ez- 
pected and contemplated result of the 
ἔδωκε; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 36. 1, p. 
393, Jelf, Gr. § 842. 2, and compare 
Schmalfeld, Synt. § 128, p. 280. This 
use of the subj. deserves observation. 

The meaning of καταντᾶν with ἐπὶ or eis 
(only the latter in the N. T.) has been 
unduly pressed; it has no necessary 
reference to former wanderings or di- 
verse starting-points (Zanch., Vatabl. ap. 
Poli Syn.), but simply implies ‘ pervenire 
ad’ (‘occurrere,’ Vulg., Clarom.), with 
ref. only to the place, person, or point 
arrived at ; see notes on Phil. iii. 11, and 
compare exx. in Schweigh. Lex, Polyb. 
S. V. 


whole of us ; 


οἱ πάντ ες] ‘weall, ‘the 
scil. all Christians, implied 
in the τῶν ἁγίων, ver. 12. It is difficult 
to agree with Ellendt (Lex. Soph. s. v. 
mas, 111. 1, Vol. 11. p. 519) in the asser- 
tion that in the plural the addition or 
omission of the article, ‘cum  sensus 
fert,’ makes no difference. The distine- 
tion is not always obvious (see Middle- 
ton, Art. v11.1), but may generally be 
deduced from the fundamental laws of 
the article. εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα 
τῆς πίστ.] ‘to the unity of the faith ;’ 
‘that oneness of faith’ (Peile, see 
Wordsw.), which was the aim and ob- 
ject towards which the spiritual efforts of 
the various forms of ministry were all 


3, 


directed ; ἕως ἂν δειχϑῶμεν πάντες μίαν 
[rather, τὴν μίαν] πίστιν ἔχοντες: τοῦτο 
γάρ ἐστιν ἑνότης πίστεως ὅταν πάντες ἕν 
ὦμεν, ὅταν πάντες ὁμοίως τὸν σύνδεσμον 
καὶ τῆ" 
ἐπιγνώσεως κ. τ. λ.] ‘and of the 
(true) knowledge of the Son of God ;’ 
further development, — not only faith in 
the Son, but saving knowledge of Him; 
the gen. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ being the gen. 
objecti (Winer, Gr. § 30. obs. p. 168), 
and 
The καὶ is thus not ‘ exegetice positum ’ 


ἔπιγινώσκωμεν, Chrys. 


belonging to both substantives. 


(Caly.), but simply copulative ; the for- 
mer interpr. though grammatically ad- 
missible (see on Gal. vi. 16), would here 
be contextually untenable, as πίστις and 
ἐπίγνωσις (see notes on ch. 1. 17) obvi- 
ously convey different ideas (Mey.), and 
are terms by no means mutually explan- 
atory ; ‘cognitio perfectius quiddam fide 
sonat,’ Beng. Such sentences as 
the present may serve to make us care- 
ful in obtruding too hastily on every 
passage the meaning of πίστις ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp. 
alluded to on ch. ili. 12, and noticed in 
notes'on Gal. ii. 16. 
τέλειον] ‘to a perfect, full-grown, man ;’ 
metaphorical apposition to the forego- 
ing member, the concrete term being 
probably selected rather than any ab- 


eis ἄνδρα 


stract term (ἡ τελειοτέρα Tay δογμάτων 
[better τοῦ Χριστοῦ] γνῶσις, Theoph.), 
as forming a good contrast to the follow- 
ing νήπιοι (ver. 14, compare 1 Cor, xiii. 
9), and as suggesting by its singular the 
idea of the complete unity of the holy 
personality further explained in the next 
clause, into which they were united and 
consummated. Instances of a similar 
use of τέλειος are cited by Raphel, Annot. 
Vol. 11. p. 447; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v. 
29.2, where παιδίον νήπιον and τέλειον 
ἄνδρα stand in studied contrast to each 
other. eis μέτρον k.T.A.] ‘to 
the measure of the stature of Christ’s ful- 
ness,’ 7. e., ‘of the fulness which Christ 
has,’ τοῦ Xp. being the gen. subjecti ; 
see esp. notes ch. iii. 19, and on the ac- 
cumulation of genitives, Winer, Gr. § 
30. 3, obs. 1, p. 172; comp. 2 Cor, iv. 4. 
Tt is doubtful whether ἡλικία is to be re- 
ferred (a) to age (John ix. 21, so clearly 
Matth. vi. 27), or (b) to stature (Luke 
xix. 3), both being explanations here 
equally admissible; see Bos, Everett. p. 
183. In the former case, τοῦ πληρ. τ. 
Xp. will be the qualifying, or rather char- 
acterizing gen. (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16, 3, 


Cuap. IV. 14. 


EPHESIANS. 97 


A 4% / 5 ΄ , \ t 
TOU, ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι 


Ῥ. 115, and notes on ch. i. 10), and will 
more nearly define τῆς jAu., — ‘the age 
when the fulness of Christ is received ; ’ 
in the latter the gen. is purely possessive. 
The antithesis (τέλειοι---νήπιοι) seems in 
fayor of (a); still, — as both words are 
metaphorical, — as μέτρον is appropri- 
ately used in reference to ‘stature’ (see 
esp. Lucian, Jmag. 6, cited by Wetst. ; 
even in Hom. Od. xviii. 217, ἥβης μέτρ. 
is associated with the idea of size), and 
still more, as the separate words πλή- 
ρωμα, αὐξήσωμεν, etc., no less than the 
context ver. 16, all suggest ideas of 
matured growth in respect of magnitude, 
—the latter interpr. (0) seems most 
probable and satisfactory; so Syr., Goth. 
(‘vahstaus’), Copt. (maze), appy. Zth., 
and our own Auth. Version. It 
has been considered a question whether 
the Apostle is here referring solely to 
present (Chrysost.), or to future life 
(Theod.). The mention of πίστις, and 
the tenor of ver. 14, 15, incline us to the 
former view; still it is probable (see 
Olsh.) that no special distinction was 
intended. St. Paul regards the Church 
as one; he declares its issue and destina- 
tion as ἑνότης and τελειότης; on the 
realization of this, whensoeyer and where- 
soever, the functions of the Christian 
ministry will cease. 

14. ἵνα μηκέτι κ. τ. A.] ‘in order 
that we may be no longer children ;’ pur- 
pose contemplated in the limitation as 
to duration of the gifts specified in ver. 
11 sq. The connection is not perfectly 
clear. Is this verse (a) codrdinate with 
ver. 13, and immediately dependent on 
11, 12 (Harl.), or (6) is it subordinate to 
it, and remotely dependent on ver. 11, 
12% The latter seems most probable ; 
ver. 13 thus defines the ‘terminus ad 
quem’ which characterizes the functions 
of the Christian ministry; ver. 14 ex- 
plains the object, viz., our ceasing to be 


νήπιοι, contemplated in the appointment 
of such a ‘terminus,’ and thence more 
remotely in the bestowal of a ministry 
so characterized ; see Meyer in loc., who 
has ably elucidated the connection. 

For a sound sermon on this text in ref- 
erence to the case of ‘ Deceivers and 
Deceived,’ see Waterl. Serm. xx1x. Vol. 
V. p. 717 sq. μηκέτι] ‘no longer ;’ 
τὸ “μηκέτι᾽ δείκνυσι πάλαι τοῦτο παϑόν- 
τας, Chrys. This is not, however, said in 
reference to Ephesians only, but as the 
context (πάντες, ver. 13) suggests, in 
ref. to Christians generally. Eadie some- 
what singularly stops to comment on 
the use of ‘ μηκέτι not οὐκέτι ;’ surely to 
ἵνα in its present sense, ‘ particula μὴ 
consentanea est,’ Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 
168. KAvOwyiCdpevor| ‘tossed 
about like waves’ (‘usvagidai’ Goth., 
compare Syr., Arm.),—not ‘by the 
waves.’ Stier, assuming the latter to be 
the true meaning of the pass. (‘meta- 
phor from a ship lying at hull,’ Bramh. 
Catching Lev. ch. 3, Vol. tv. p. 592), 
adopts the middle (comp. ‘ fluctuantes,’ 
Vulg.) to avoid the then incongruous 
κλυδ. ἀνέμῳ. The exx. however, ad- 
duced by Wetst. and Krebs, viz., Aris- 
ten. Hpist. 1. 27, κλυδωνίζεσϑαι ἐκ τοῦ 
πόδου, Joseph. Antig. 1x. 11. 3, ταρασ- 
σόμενος καὶ κλυδωνιζόμενος, confirm the 
passive use and the former meaning ; 
comp. James i. 6. ἀνέμῳ τῆς 
διδασκαλία 5] ‘wave of doctrine.” The 
article does not show ‘the prominence 
which teaching possessed in the Church’ 
(Eadie), but specifies διδασκαλία in the 
abstract, every kind and degree of it; 
see Middleton, Art. v. 1, p. 89 sq. (ed. 
Rose). On the apparent distinction be- 
tween διδασκαλία and διδαχή, see on 2 
Tim. iv. 2. ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ 
k. τ. A.] ‘in the sleight of men,’ ---- of men, 
not the faith and knowledge of the Son 
of God, ver. 13. Ἔν may be plausibly 


13 


98 


EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. IV. 14. 


\ > ey 2 A / 2 A ΄ lal ’ , 5 
παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας ἐν τῇ κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνδρώπων, ἐν 


considered instrumental (Arm., Mey.) ; 
as, however, this would seem pleonastic 
after the instrumental, or what Kriiger 
(Sprachl. § 48. 151 sq.) more inclusively 
terms the dynamic dat. ἀνέμῳ (see Heb. 
xiii. 9), and would mar the seeming 
parallelism with ἐν ἀγάπῃ (ver. 15), the 
prep. appears rather to denote the ele- 
ment, the evil atmosphere, as it were, in 
which the varying currents of doctrine 
exist and exert their force ; so Clarom., 
Vulg., Copt., /£th.-Pol., and perhaps 
Goth., but see De Gabel. in loc. 

The term κυβεία (ἈΞ Ὁ} Heb.), properly 
denotes ‘playing with dice’ (Plato, 
Phedr. 274 D, πεττείας καὶ κυβείας, see 
Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), and thence, by an 
easy transition, ‘sleight of hand,’ ‘fraud’ 
(πανουργία, Suid.; comp. κυβεύειν, Ar- 
rian, pict. 11. 19, 111. 21, cited by 
Wetst.) ; 
τῇδε κἀκεῖσε μεταφέρειν τοὺς ψήφους καὶ 
πανούργως τοῦτο ποιεῖν, Theod.; see 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 181, 
Schoettg. Hor. Heb. Vol. 1. p. 775. 


ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς k. τ: A] ‘in 


ἴδιον δὲ τῶν κυβευόντων τὸ 


craftiness tending to the deliberate system 
of error, ‘in astutia ad cireumyentionem 
erroris,’ Vulg.; appositional and partly 
explanatory clause to the foregoing. 
The Auth. Ver. (comp. Syr.) is here too 
paraphrastic, and obscures the meaning 
of both πρὸς and peSodefa. The former 
is not equivalent to κατά, Riick., ‘with,’ 
Peile, but denotes the aim, the natural 
tendency, of πανουργία (compare notes on 
Tit.i. 1); the pedsodeta τῆς mA. is that 
which πανουργία has in view (compare 
πρὸς τὸν καταρτ. ver. 12), and to which 
it is readily and naturally disposed. As 
πανουργία is anarthrous, the omission of 
the art. before πρὸς (which induces Rick. 
incorrectly to refer the clause to pepépe- 
vot) is perfectly regular ; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 20. 4, p. 126. The somewhat 
rare term μέϑοδεία, a δὶς λεγόμ. in the 


N. T. (see ch. vi. 11), must have its 
meaning fixed by μεϑοδεύω. This verb 
denotes, ‘the pursuit, etc., of a settled 
plan’ — (a) honestly (Diod. Sic. 1. 81, 
μ- Thy ἀληϑείαν ἐκ τῆς ἐμπειρίας), or () 
dishonestly (Polyb. Fr. Hist. ΧΧΧΥΤΙΙ. 
4.10), and hence comes to imply ‘decep- 
tion,’ ‘fraud,’ with more or less of plan 
(2 Sam. xix. 27); comp. Chrys. on Eph. 
vi. 11, μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ 
διὰ συντόμου (μηχανῆς Sav.) ἑλέιν ; see 
also Miinthe, Obs. p. 367. Thus then 
μεϑοδεία is ‘a deliberate planning or sys- 
tem,’ (Peile; τὴν μηχανὴν ἐκάλεσεν, 
Theod.),’ the further idea of ‘fraud’ 
(τέχνη ἢ δόλος, Suid., ἐπιβουλή, Zonar.) 
being here expressed in πλάνης; see 
Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 329. 
The reading is doubtful; Tisch. (ed. 7) 
adopts the form μεϑοδίαν with BIDIFG 
KL; and several mss., but appy. on 
insufficient authority ; changes in orthog- 
raphy which may be accounted for by 
itacism or some mode of erroneous tran- 
scription must always be received with 
caution ; comp. Winer, Gir. ὃ 5. 4, p. 47. 
πλάνη 5 has not here (nor Matth. xxvii. 
64, 2 Thess. ii. 11) the active mean- 
ing of ‘misleading’ (De W., compare 


> y 
Syr. ead? [ut seducant], nor even 


necessarily that of ‘delusion’ (Harl.), 
but its simple, classical, and regular 
meaning, ‘error’ — ‘erroris,’ Vulgate, 
‘airzeins,’ Goth. The gen. is obviously 
not the gen. objecti (Riick.), but subjecti, 
— it is the πλάνη which pedsodever, — and 
thus stands in grammatical parallelism 
with the preceding gen. τῶν av3p. The 
use of the article must not be over- 
looked; it serves almost to personify 
πλάνη, not, however, as metonymically 
for ‘Satan’ (Bengel), but as ‘ Error’ in 
its most abstract nature, and thus renders 
the contrast to 7 ἀλήϑεια implied in ἀλη- 
Sevovtes, more forcible and significant. 


Cuap. IV. 15. 


“ \ \ / a / 
πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεδοδείαν τῆς πλάνης, 


1ὅ. ἀληϑεύοντες δέ] ‘but holding 
the truth, walking truthfully ;? participial 
member attached to αὐξήσωμεν, and with 
it grammatically dependent on ἵνα (ver. 
14),—the whole clause, as the use of 
δὲ (after a negative sentence) seems dis- 
tinctly to suggest (comp. Hartung, Par- 
tuk. δέ, 2. 11, Vol. 1. p. 171), standing 
in simple and direct opposition to the 
whole preceding verse (esp. to the con- 
eluding πλανή, De W.), without, how- 
ever, any reference to the preceding ne- 
gation, which would rather have required 
ἀλλά; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 


8, 361, Donalds. Cratyl. § 201. The 
meaning of ἀληϑεύειν is somewhat 
doubtful. On the one hand, such trans- 


Jations as ‘ yeritati operam dare’ (Calv.) 
and even ‘ Wahrheit /esthalten’ (Riick.) 
are lexically untenable (see Rost u. 
Palm, Ler. 8. v. &And. Vol. 1. p. 97); 
on the other, the common meaning, 
‘veritatem dicere’ (Gal. iv. 16), seems 
clearly exegetically unsatisfactory. It 
is best then to preseve an intermediate 
sense, ‘walking in truth’ (Olsh.) or (to 
preserve an antithesis in transl. between 
πλάνης and ἀληδ.) ‘holding the truth,’ 
Scholef. (Hints, p. 100), — which latter 
interpr., if ‘holding’ be not unduly 
pressed, is almost justified by Plato, 
Theet. 202 B, ἀληϑεύειν τὴν ψυχὴν 
[‘verum sentire,’ Ast] περὶ αὐτό; so in 
effect, but somewhat too strongly, Vulg., 
Clarom., Goth., ‘veritatem facientes,’ 
and sim. Copt. 
connection of these words has been much 
discussed. Are they to be joined — (a) 
with the participle (Syr., 4Zth., Theoph., 
G&cum.), or — (Ὁ) with the finite verb 
(Theod., — who, however, omits ἀληδ. 
and appy. Chrys., τῇ ἀγάπῃ συνδεδεμέ- 
vot)? It must fairly be conceded that 
the order, the parallelism of structure with 
that of ver. 14, and still more the vital 
association between love and the truest 


ἐν ἀγάπῃ] The 


EPHESIANS. 9009 


u 


© adySevovtes δὲ ἐν 


form of truth (see Stier in /oc.), are argu- 
ments of some weight in favor of (a) ; 
still the absence of any clear antithesis 
between ἐν ἀγ. and either of the preposit. 
clauses in ver. 14 forms a negative argu- 
ment, and the concluding words of ver. 
16 (whether ἐν ay. be joined immediately 
with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται Mey., or with οἶκο- 
dounv) supply a positive argument in 
favor of (b), of such force, that this lat- 
ter connection must be pronounced the 
more probable, and certainly .the one 
most in harmony with the context; 
compare ch. i. 4. The order may have 
arisen from a desire to keep αὐτὸν as 
near as possible to its relative. 
αὐτόν] ‘into Him,’ Auth. Ver.; εἰς not 
implying merely ‘in reference to’ (Mey.); 
—a frigid and unsatisfactory interpreta- 
tion of which that expositor is too fond 
(comp. notes on Gal. iii. 27), nor ‘for’ 
(Eadie), nor even simply ‘unto,’ ‘to the 
standard of’ (Conyb.; comp. εἰς ἄνδρα 
τέλειον, ver. 13), but retaining its fuller 
and deeper theological sense ‘into,’ so 
that avg. with εἰς conveys both ideas, 
‘unto and into. The growth of Chris- 
tians bears relation to Christ both as its 
centre and standard ; while the limits of 
that growth are defined by ‘the stature 
of the fulness of Christ,’ its centre is 
also, and must be, in Him; comp. some 
profound remarks in Ebrard, Dogmatik, 
§ 445 sq. τὰ πάντα] ‘in all the 
parts in which we grow’ (Mey.), ‘in all 
the elements of our growth ;’ the article 
being thus most simply explained by 
the context. It now need scarcely be 
said that no ‘supplement of kata’ 
(Eadie, Stier) is required ; τὰ πάντα is 
the regular accus. of what is termed the 
quantitative object (Hartung, Casus, p. 
46), and serves to characterize the extent 
of the action; see Madvig, Gr. § 27, 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5. 4. ὅς 
ἐστιν κ' τ. λ.} ‘who ts the Head, even 


> 
ees 


100 EPHESIANS. 


Cuar. LV. 16. 


> / ᾽ fe ’ τ \ \ 4 “ ’ ς / 
ἀγάπῃ αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν Ta πάντα, Os ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή, Χρισ- 


. - a - ΄ \ ΄ 
τός, " ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμε- 


Christ.’ There is here neither transpo- 
sition (Grot., comp. Syr.), nor careless- 
ness of construct. for εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν Xp. 
(Pise.). Instead of the ordinary form 
of simple, or what is termed parenthetic 
apposition (see exx. Kriiger, Sprachil. 
ὁ 57. 9), the Apostle, not improbably for 
the sake of making ἐξ οὗ, ver 16, per- 
fectly perspicuous (De W.), adopts the 
relatival sentence, with the structure of 
which the apposition is assimilated ; see 
exx. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. 4, p. 424 (ed. 5), 
and Stalb. Plat. Apol. 41 a. The 
reading is somewhat doubtful ; Rec. pre- 
fixes the art. to Xp. with DEFGKL; 
most mss.; Chrys., Theod. (De Wette, 
Mey.), — but appy. on authority inferior 
to that for its omission, viz. ABC, 3 
mss.; Did., Bas., Cyr., al. (Zachm., 
Tisch., Alf.). Internal arguments can- 
not safely be urged, as the preponder- 
ance of instances of real omission (58) 
over those of insertion (31) is not very 
decided; see the table drawn up by 
Rose in his ed. of Middleton, Gr. Art. 
Append. 11. p. 490 sq., and Gersdorf, 
Beitrége, 111. p. 272 sq. Under any cir- 
cumstances the position of the word at 
the end of the verse gives it both force 
and emphasis. 

16. ἐξ οὗ] ‘from whom,’ Auth., ‘ex 
quo,’ Syr., Vulgate, Clarom., — not ‘in 
quo,’ Eth. (both) ; ἐξ οὗ, as the instruc- 
tive parallel, Col. ii. 19, clearly suggests, 
being joined with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, and 
ἐκ, with its proper and primary force of 
origin, source, denoting the origin, the 
‘fons augmentationis,’ Beng. ; see notes 
on Gal. ii. 16. It is not wholly uninter- 
esting to remark that the force of the 
metaphor is enhanced by the apparent 
physiological truth, that the energy of 
vital power varies with the distance from 
the head ; see Schubert, G'esch. der Seele, 


§ 22, p.. 270 (ed,.1). συναρμο- 


λογούμενον) ‘being fitly framed to- 
gether ;’ pres. part., the action still going 
on; see notes ch, ii. 21. συνβι- 


G a Me 
βαζόμεν ον] ‘compacted, ἐἰιρδαο 
[et colligatur] Syr., ‘connexum,’ Vulg., 
Clarom., ‘gagahaflib,’ Goth., — or more 
literally and with more special reference 
to derivation [BA-, Batvw], ‘put together ;’ 
compare Col. ii. 19, and in a figurative 
sense, Acts ix. 22, xvi. 10. The differ- 
ence of meaning between συναρμ. and 
συνβ. has been differently stated. <Ac- 
cording to Bengel, the first denotes the 
harmony, the second the solidity and firm- 
ness of the structure. Perhaps the 
more exact view is that which the sim- 
ple meanings of the words suggest, viz., 
that συνβ. refers to the aggregation, ov- 
vapu. to the inter-adaptation of the com- 
ponent parts. The external author- 
ity for the form συνβιβ. [AB(?)CD!IFG] 
is appy. sufficient to warrant the adop- 
tion of this less usual form; see Tisch. 
Prolegom. p. XLv1t. διὰ Taons 
apis] ‘by means of every joint,’ ‘per 
omnem juncturam,’ Vulg., Clarom., and 
sim. all the ancient Vy. Meyer still 
retains the interpr. of Chrys., Theod., 
ἁφὴ = αἴσϑησις, and connects the clause 
with αὔξ. ποιεῖται; but the parallel pas- 
sage, Col. ii. 19, τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων 
(observe esp. the omission of the 2d arti- 
cle, Winer, § 19. 4) leaves it scarcely 
doubtful that the meaning usually as- 
signed (comp. Athen. 111. 202 τ, Plat. 


Anton. 27) is correct, and that the clause 


is to be connected with the participles. 

τῆς ἐπιχορηγίαΞ5] ‘of the (spiritual ) 
supply ;’ the article implying the specific 
émixop. which Christ supplies, τῆς χορη- 
ylas τῶν χαρισμάτων, Chrysost.; on the 
meaning of the word compare notes on 
Gal. iii. 5. The gen. is not the gen. of 
apposition (Riick., Harl.), nor a mere 


Cuap. IV. 16. 


EPHESIANS. 


101 


νον dia πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς 


/ ἴω “-“ 
ἑκάστου μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν 


n 3 
ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη. 


Hebraistic genitive of quality, ‘joint of 
ministry ’ = ‘ministering joint’ (Peile, 
Green, Gramm. N. T. p. 264; compare 
Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b), but a kind of 
gen. definitivus, by which the predom- 
inant use, purpose, or destination of the 
ἁφὴ is specified and characterized ; see 
Heb. ix. 21, σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας, and 
compare the exx. cited by Winer, Gir. § 
30. 2, B, p. 170. The suggestion of 
Dobree (Advers. Vol. τ. p. 573), partly 
adopted by Scholef., that ἐπιχ. may be 
‘materia suppeditata,’ is not very satis- 
factory or tenable; see Phil. i. 19. 

kat’ ἐνέργειαν k. τ. λ.] ‘according 
to energy in the measure of (sc. commen- 
surate with) each individual part ;’ τῷ μὲν 
δυναμένῳ πλέον δέξασϑαι, πλέον, τῷ δὲ 
These words 
may be connected either (a) with émyo- 
pnylas, —the omission of the art. is no 
objection (Riick.), as ἡ ἐπιχ. κατ᾽ ἐνέργ. 
may form one idea (Winer, Gr. § 20, 2, 
p- 123), or (0) with the participles, or 
yet again (c) with the finite verb. As 
the expressions of the clause far more 
appropriately describe the nature of the 
growth than either the mode of compac- 
tion or the degree of the supply, the lat- 
ter construction is to be preferred. Kat’ 
évépy. is then a modal predication, ap- 
pended to ποιεῖται, defining the nature of 
the αὔξησις ; this growth is neither abnor- 
mal nor proportionless, but is regulated 
by a vital power which is proportioned 
to the nature and extext of the separate 
parts. Dobree (Advers. Vol. 1. p. 573) 
strongly condemns this translation, but, 
as it would seem, without sufficient rea- 
son. His own translation, which con- 
nects κατ᾽ évépy. with ἑνὸς ἑκ. μέρ. and 


ἐλάττω, ἔλαττον, Chrys. 


isolates ἐν μέτρῳ, impairs the force of the 
deep and consolatory truths which the 
ordinary connection suggests. For a 


good practical application see Eadie in 
loc. The reading μέλους is fairly 
supported [AC; Vulg., Copt., Syr., al. ; 
Cyr., Chrys., al.], but is appy. rightly 
rejected by most recent editors, as a 
gloss on μέρους suggested by the preced- 
ing σῶμα and the succeeding σώματος. 

τὴν αὔξ. τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται] 
‘promotes, carries on, the growth of the 
body,’ — σώματος being probably added 
for the sake of perspicuity, and so prac- 
tically taking the place of the reciprocal 
pronoun ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 22. 2, p. 
130, Kriiger, Xenoph. Anab. p. 27. 
Stier, perhaps not incorrectly, finds in 
the repetition of the noun an enuncia- 
tion of a spiritual truth, echoed by éav- 
Tod, — that the body makes increase of 
the body, and so is a living organism ; — 
that its growth is not due 
tions from without, but to 
from within; comp. Harless. 


to agerega- 
vital forces 

The 
not to he 
insisted on as confirming this (Alf.), this 
form appy. being not so much reflexive 
(Wordsw.), as dntensive and indicative 
of the energy with which the process 
is carried on; see Kriiger, Spruchl. § 
compare Donalds. Gr. 432. 


middle ποιεῖται is perhaps 


BD: ν ΤῸ 
2 


ἃ εἰς οἰκοδομήν ἐν ἀγ.} 
‘for building up of itself in love ;’ 
o o> Me 
σιλ..λ5 SoS) od Loomu59 
wv wv Δ » 2 


[ut in caritate perficiatur adificium ¢jus| 
Syr. end and object of the αὔξησιν ποιεῖ- 
ται; love is the element in which the 
edification takes place. Meyer connects 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, to har- 
monize with ver. 15, but without suffi- 
cient reason, and in opp. to the obvious 
objection that αὔξησιν ποιεῖται is thus 
associated with two limiting prepositional 
clauses, and the unity of thought propor- 
tionately impaired ; comp. Alf. in loc. 


102 


Do not walk as darkened, 
hardened, and feelingless 
heathens. Put off the old, 
and put on the new man. 


17. τοῦτο οὖν λεγω] ‘ This, I say 
then ;’ this, sc. what follows ; connecting 
the verse with the hortatory portion 
commenced ver. 1—3, by resumption on 
the negative side (μηκέτι περιπατεῖν) of 
the exhortation previously expressed on 
the positive side, ver. 1—3 (aapak. ἀξίως 
περιπατῆσαι), but interrupted by the di- 
gression, ver. 4—16; πάλιν ἀνέλαβε τῆς 
On 
this resumptive force of οὖν, see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, and notes on Gal. 
iii. 5. The illative force advocated by 
Eadie after Meyer (ed. 1), is here im- 
probable, and rightly retracted by Meyer 
(ed. 2); comp. Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31. 
μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘testify, sol- 
emnly declare, (‘quasi testibus adhibitis ’) 
in the Lord, —not‘ per Dominum,’ (μάρ- 
τυρα δὲ τὸν Κύριον καλῶ, Chrysost. ; see 
Fritz.-Rom. ix. 1, Vol. 11. p. 241), nor 
even as specifying the authority upon 
(‘tanquam Christi discipulus,’ 
Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 84), but, as usual, 
defining the element or sphere in which 
the declaration is made; compare Rom. 
ix. 1, ἀλήϑειαν λέγω ἐν Xp.; 2 Cor. ii. 
17, ἐν Xp. λαλοῦμεν (scarcely correctly 
translated by Fritz. ‘ut homines cum 
Christo nexi’), 1 Thess. iv. 1, παρακα- 
λοῦμεν ἐν Κυρίῳ, and see notes in loc. 
By thus sinking his own personality, the 
solemnity of the Apostle’s declaration is 
greatly enhanced. 
see notes on Gal. vy. 8, and compare 
Raphel. Annot. Vol. 11. p. 478, 595. 
μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν) ‘that ye 
subject and sub- 
stance of the hortatory declaration ; see 


παραινέσεως τὸ προοίμιον, Theod. 


which 


On this use of papr. 


9 


no longer (must ) walk : 


Acts xxi. 21, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς 
τὰ τέκνα. In objective sentences of this 
nature (see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.) 
the infinitive frequently involves the 
same conception that would have been 
expressed in the direct sentence by the 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 17. 


Ἂν A 5 , \ 
“ Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ, 

/ ς a al 
μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν KaS@S Kal τὰ λουπὰ 


imperative, and is usually (but incor- 
rectly) explained by an ellipsis of δεῖν ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, p. 371, Lobeck, 
Phryn. 753 sq., and compare Heindorf 
on Plato, Protag. 346 B. kal τὰ 
λοιπὰ ἔϑνη])] ‘the rest of the Gentiles 
> with tacit reference to their own 
former state when unconverted ; the καὶ 
introducing a comparison or gentle con- 
trast between the emphatically expressed 
ὑμᾶς and the ἔϑνη, of which but lately 
they formed a part; see notes on verses 
4, 32, and on Phil. iv. 12. The term 
λοιπὰ is here rightly used, as the Ephe- 
sians, though Christians, still fell under 
the general denomination of Gentiles ; 
it serves also to convey a hint reminding 
them what they once were, and what 
they now ought not to be; see Wolf in 
loc. The external authority for striking 
this last word (λοιπὰ) out of the text 
[Lachm. with ABDIFG; 5 mss., Cla- 
rom., Sang., Aug., Boern., Vulg., Copt., 
Sahid., Ath. (both); Clem., Cyr., al.] 
is rather strong; still as the probability 
of its being left out from being imper- 
fectly understood, seems so much greater 
than the probability of its being a con- 
formation to ch. ii. 3 (Mill, zn loc., and 
Prolegom. p. LX), we may perhaps safely 
retain the adject. with D?D°EKL; great 
majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Goth., 
al.; Chrys., Theod. (Zisch. ed. 2 and 7, 
ΑΓ, al.). 
A.] ‘in the vanity of their mind ;’ sphere 
of their moral walk ; comp. Rom. i. 21, 


also ; 


ἐν ματαιότητι K.T. 


ἐματαιώϑησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν. 
Chrys. rightly explains the words by τὸ 
περὶ τὰ μάταια ἠσχολῆσϑαι, but is prob- 
ably not correct in restricting them to 
idolatry, as μάταιος and ματαιόω do not 
necessarily involve any such reference ; 
compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. 65. The 
reference seems rather to that general 
nothingness and deprayation of the νοῦς 


Cuap. IV. 18. 


NK A 3 , a lal 
ἔϑνη περυπατεῖ EV ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, 


EPHESIANS. 


103 


5.3 A 
* ἐσκοτισμένοι TH 


διανοίᾳ ὄντες, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν a 
avoia S$, ἀπὴ ριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ THY ἄγνοιαν 


(the higher moral and intellectual ele- 
ment), which was the universal charac- 
teristic of heathenism ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 
1. 3, p. 85 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, 
2 Tim. iii. 8. 

18. ἐσκοτισμένοι bytes] ‘being 
darkened:’ participial clause defining 
their state, and accounting for the pre- 
ceding assertion (see Donalds. Gr. § 
616); ἐσκοτ. (opp. to πεφωτισμένοι, ch. 
i. 18; comp. Rom. i. 21, xi. 10, 1 Thess. 
y. 4) referring to their state of moral 
darkness, and ὄντες (rightly referred by 
Tisch., Lachm., to ἐσκοτ., not to ἀπηλλ. 
[Eadie], — a punctuation which mars 
the emphatic parallelism of the initial 
perf. participles) marking, somewhat 
pleonastically after the perf. part., its 
permanent and enduring state; comp. 
Winer. Gr. § 45. 5. p. 311. The ap- 
parently conjugate nature of the clauses 
(comp. ὄντες5---οὖσαν) has led Olsh. and 
others to couple together ἐσκοτ. κ. τ. A. 
and διὰ τὴν ἄγν. as relating to the intel- 
lect, ἀπηλλ. xk. τ. A. and διὰ τὴν πώρ. as 
relating to the feelings. This, however, 
though at first sight plausible, will not 
be found logically satisfactory. The 
being ἐσκοτ. x. τ. A. could scarcely be 
said to be the consequence of their ἄγ- 
voia (‘ignorance’ simply, Acts iii. 17, 
xvii. 30. and appy. 1 Pet. 1.14), but ra- 
ther vice versa, whereas it seems perfectly 
consistent to say that their alienation 
was caused by their ignorance, and still 
more by the ensuing mépwors. Hence 
the punctuation of the text. The 
reading ἐσκοτισμένοι is not perfectly cer- 
tain; the more classical ἐσκοτωμένοι is 
found in AB; Ath. (Zachm., Tisch. ed. 
7), but has not sufficient support to war- 
rant its being received in the text. 

TH διανοίᾳ) ‘in their understanding,’ 
‘in their higher intellectual nature,’ 
διέξοδος λογική (Orig.; comp. Beck, 


Seelenl. 11. 19, p. 58); see ch. i. 18, ii. 
3, and Joseph. Antig. 1x. 4. 8, thy διά- 
νοιαν ἐπεσκοτισμένου. The dat. (‘of 
reference to’) denotes the particular 
sphere to which the ‘darkness’ is lim- 
ited ; see notes on Gal. i. 22, Winer, Gr. 
§ 31.3, p. 244. The distinction between 
this dat. and the ace., as in Joseph. J. c., 
is not very easy to define, as such an 
accus. has clearly some of the limiting 
character which we properly assign to 
the dat.; see Hartung, Casus, p. 62. 
Perhaps the acc. might denote that the 
darkness extended over the mind, the dat. 
that it has its seat in the mind; see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1. 
ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι] ‘being alienated 
from, ἀλλότριοι καδεστῶτες, Theod.- 
Mops. ; see notes on ch. ii. 12. 

τῆς ζωῆς TOD Θεοῦ] ‘from the life 
of God.’ This is one of the many cases 
(see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. obs. p. 168) 
where the nature of the gen., whether 
objecti or subjecti, must be determined 
solely from exegetical considerations. 
As ζωὴ appears never to denote ‘ course 
of life’ (e. 9. τὴν ἐν ἀρετῇ ζωὴν Theod.) 
in the N. T., but ‘the principle of life’ 
as opp. to Sdvatos (comp. Trench, Syn. 
ὃ XXv11), Tod Θεοῦ will more naturally 
be the gen. subj. or auctoris, ‘the life 
which God gives:’ comp. δικαιοσύνη 
Θεοῦ, Rom. i. 17 with δικ. ἐκ. ©., Phil. 
iii. 9. It is, however, probable that we 
must advance a step farther, and regard 
the gen. as possessive. This (unique) 
expression will then denote not merely 
the παλιγγενεσία, but in the widest doc- 
trinal application, ‘the life of God’ in 
the soul of man; comp. Olsh. and Stier 
an loc., and see esp. the good treatise on 
(wh in Olsh. Opuse. 
ἐν αὐτοῖς seems intended to point out 
the indwelling, deep-seated nature of the 
ἄγνοια, and to form a sort of parallelism 


Thy οὖσαν 


104 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. LY. 19. 


5 aA \ WV , a y a 
τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ THY πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, "5 οἵτι- 


νες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν 


to τῆς καρδ. αὐτῶν. Meyer (compare 
Peile) conceiving that the words indicate 
the subordination of διὰ τὴν map. to διὰ 
τὴν ἄγν. removes the comma after αὐὖ- 
τοῖς. This is certainly awkward: St. 
Paul’s more than occasional use of co- 
ordinate clauses (e. g. Gal. iv. 4) leads 
us to regard both members as dependent 
on ἀπηλλ. (Orig.), and structurally in- 
dependent of each other, though, as the 
context seems to suggest, the latter may 
be considered slightly explanatory of the 
former, and (like ἀπηλλ.) expressive of 
a state naturally consequent; sec esp. 
Orig. in Cram. Caten. p. 175. π ώ- 
ρωσιν]} ‘callousness,’ ‘hardness,’ — not 
‘cxcitatem,’ Syr. (both), Clarom., Vuig., 
τη. (both), Arm. (Suid. πώρωσις, ἣ τυ- 
φλωσις), but ‘obdurationem’ Copt. (thom, 
— which however includes both signifi- 
cations), ‘daubipos,’ Goth.,—7 ἐσχάτη 
ἀναλγησία, Theod. The word πώρωσις 
is not derived from πωρός ‘cxecus’ (‘ vox, 
ut videtur, a grammaticis ficta,’ Fritz. 
Rom. xi.7, Vol. 11. p. 452), and certainly 
not from πόρος (διαφράττειν), as appy. 
Chrys., but from πῶρος, ‘tuffstone,’ and 
thence from the similarity of appearance, 
a ‘morbid swelling’ (Aristot. Hist. An. 
111. 19), the ‘callus’ at the extremity of 
fractured bones (Med. Writers). The 
adject. πωρός, in the sense of ταλαίπωρος 
(Hesych.), is cognate with πηρός, and 
derived from TAQ, πάσχω ; comp. Pha- 
yor. Helog. 150. b, p. 396 (ed. Dind.). 
19. οἵτιν ε5]} ‘who as men;’ explana- 
tory force of ὕστις ; see notes on Gal. ii. 
4, iv. 24. ἀπηλγηκ ότ ες] ‘being 
past feeling,’ Auth.,— an admirable trans- 
lation. The use of the semi-technical 
term mépwots, suggests this appropriate 
continuation of the metaphor. There is 
then no reference to mere ‘ desperatio,’ 
comp. Polyb. Hist. 1x. 40. 9, ἀπαλγοῦν- 
Tes ταῖς ἐλπίσι, and exx. in Raphel, An- 


᾽ 


not. Vol. 11. p. 479), as Syr., Vulg., 
Goth., — but possibly with the reading of 
1) E, al. ἀπηλπικότες, -τ-- nor even to that 
feelingless state which is the result of it 
(Cicero, Kpist. Fam. 11. 3, ‘desperatione 
obduruisse ad dolorem,’ aptly cited by 
Beng.), but, as the context shows, to 
that moral apathy and deadness which 
supervenes when the heart has ceased to 
be sensible of the ‘stimuli’ of the con- 
science ; τὸ δὲ ἀπηλγηκότες ὥσπερ τῶν 
ἀπὸ πάϑους Tivds μέρη πολλάκις τοῦ σώμα- 
TOS νενεκρωμένων, οἷς ἄλγος οὐδὲν ἐκεῖ- 
sev ἐγγίνεται, Theod.-Mops. The gloss 
of Theoph. κατεῤῥαϑυμηκότες (compare 
Chrys.), adopted by Hamm. on Rom. i. 
29, but here appy. retracted, is untenable, 
as it needlessly interrupts the continuity 
of the metaphor. 
selves,’ as Meyer well says, with frightful 
It has been observed by 
Chrys. and others that there is no oppo- 
sition here with Rom. i. 26, παρέδωκεν 
The progress of sin is 
represented under two aspects, or rather 
two stages of its fearful course. By a 
perverted exercise of his free-will, man 
plunges himself into sin; the deeper de- 
mersion in it is the judicial act (no mere 
συγχώρησις, Chrys.) of God; compare 
Wordsw. in loc. τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ) 
‘Wantonness.’ On the meaning and der- 
ivation of this word, see notes on Gal. v. 
19, and comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ xv. 

eis ἐργασίαν] ‘to working;’ consci- 
ous object of the fearful self-abandon- 
ment: épyac., φησίν, ἔϑεντο TO πρᾶγμα. 
... Opas πῶς αὐτοὺς ἀποστερεῖ συγγνώμης, 
Chrys. πάση 9] ‘of every kind, 
whether natural or unnatural ; μοιχεία, 
πορνεία, παιδεραστία, Chrys. As St. 
Paul most commonly places πᾶς before, 
and not, as here, after the abstract (an- 
arthrous) subst., it seems proper to ex- 
press in transl. the full force of πάσης: 


éautovs| ‘them- 


emphasis. 


αὐτοὺς 6 Θεός. 


Cuap. IV. 20, 21. 


EPHESIANS. 


105 


> / / 3, / 20 ς fal \ by e/ ’ A 
ἀκαδαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετε 


\ , 2] " ᾿ἣς ἐν b] 4 \ 5 > a b) / 
TOV Χριστόν, ΕεἰὙΥΕ AUTOV ἠκούσατε και EV avT@ ἐδιδάχϑητε 


comp. notes ch. i. 8. ἐν πλεο- 
νεξίᾳ] ‘in (not ‘with’) covetousness ;’ 
ἐν marking the condition, the prevailing 
state or frame of mind in which they 
wrought the ἀκαῦ. The word πλεονεξία 
(‘amor habendi,’ Fritz., ‘boni alieni ad 
se redactio,’ Beng. on Rom. i. 29), is 
here explained by Chrysostom and sey- 
eral Greek Ff. (see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 
11. p. 750), followed by Hammond (in a 
valuable note on Rom. i. 29) and by 
Trench, Synon. XX1v., as ἀμετρία, ‘im- 
moderate, inordinate desire.’ In sup- 
port of this extended meaning the recital 
of πλεονεξία with sins of the flesh, 1 
Cor. v. 11, Eph. v. 3, Col. iii. 5, is pop- 
ularly urged by Trench and others, but 
appy-, as a critical examination of the 
passages will show, without full conclu- 
siveness. For example, in 1 Cor. v. 10, 
τοῖς πόρνοις ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρ- 
παξιν (Tisch., Lachm.), the use of the dis- 
junct. ἢ between πόρν. and πλεον. opp. to 
the conjunct. καὶ between πλεον. and apr., 
and esp. the omission of the art. before 
(Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116) 
tend to prove the very reverse. Again, 
in Eph. v. 3, πορνεία is joined with ἄκα- 
ϑαρσία by καί, while πλεονεξ. is disjoined 
from them by #; see notes. Lastly, in 
Col. iii. 5, the preceding anarthrous, 
unconnected nouns, πορν., ἀκαῦ., mdd., 
have no very close union with καὶ τὴν 
πλεονεξίαν κ. τ. X., from which, too, they 
are separated by ἐπιϑυμίαν κακήν; see 
notes in loc. While, therefore, we may 
admit the deep significance of the spir- 
itual fact that this sin is mentioned in 
connection with strictly carnal sins, we 
must also deny that there are grammat- 
ical or contextual reasons for obliterat- 
ing the idea of covetousness and self-seek- 
tng, Which seems bound up in the word ; 
see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 3. 2, 
Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark). 


e 
apt. 


20. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But you;’ with dis- 
tinct and emphatic contrast to these 
unconverted and feelingless heathen. 
οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάδετεϊ ‘did not thus 
learn Christ ;?—but on principles very 
different ; the οὕτως obviously implying 
much more than is expressed (‘litotes’ ); 
τὰ τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ παντάπασιν evay- 
tia, Theodoret. This use of μανῷ. with 
an accus. persone is somewhat difficult to 
explain, and is probably unique. Raphel 
(Annot. Vol. τι. p. 480) cites Xenoph. 
Hell. 11.1.1, but the example is illusory. 
The common interpr. Χριστὸς = ‘ doc- 
trina Christi’ (Grot., Turner) is frigid 
and inadmissible, and the use of éudSere 
in the sense of ‘learnt to know,’ scil. 
‘who He is and what He desires’ 
(Riick.), has not appy. any lexical au- 
thority. We can only then regard Xp. 
as the object which is learnt (or heard, 
ver. 21), the content of the preaching, so 
that the hearer, as it were, ‘takes up into 
himself and appropriates the person of 
Christ Himself’ (Olsh.) ; comp. the sim- 
ilar but not identical expression, παρα- 
λαμβάνειν τὸν Χριστὸν Ἴησ., Col. ii. 6; 
see notes in loc. 

21. εἴγε] ‘if indeed, ‘tum certe si;’ 
not ‘since,’ Eadie; see notes, ch. ii. 2, 
Hartung, Partitk. Vol. 1, p. 407 sq. 
The explanation of Chrysost. ov ἀμφι- 
βάλλοντος ἐστί, ἀλλὰ καὶ σφόδρα διαβε- 
βαιουμένου, is improved on by Cicum., 
ὡσεὶ εἶπεν, ἀμφιβάλλω γὰρ ef τις τὸν Xp. 
ἀκούσας καὶ διδαχϑεὶς ἐν αὐτῷ τοιαῦτα 
πράττει. αὐτὸν ἠκούσατ ε] ‘ye 
heard Him ;’ αὐτὸν being put forward 
with emphasis ; —‘if indeed it was Him, 
His divine voice and divine Self that 
you really heard ;’ Alf. pertinently com- 
pares John x. 27, but obs. that the αὐτὸν 
is here used in the same sort of inclusive 
way as τὸν Χριστόν, ver. 20. No argu- 
ment can fairly be deduced from this 
14 


100 


y a? la) 
Kaos ἐστιν ἀλήδεια ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 


that St. Paul had not himself instructed 
the readers (De W.); see on,ch. iii. 2. 
ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him;’ not ‘by Hin,’ 
Arm., Auth., or ‘illius nomine,’ Beng., 
but, as usual, ‘in union with Him;’ see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. Meyer calls 
attention to the precision of the lan- 
guage, αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε pointing to the 
first reception, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχ. to the fur- 
ther instruction which they had received 
as Christians. Both are included in the 
foregoing ἐμάϑετε τὸν Χριστόν. 

καϑώς ἐστιν GANS. kK. τ. λ.] ‘as, 
or according as, is truth in Jesus.’ The 
meaning and connection of this clause 
are both obscure, and have received 
many different interpretations, most of 
which involve errors affecting one or 
more of the following particulars, — the 
meaning of καϑώς (Riick.), the position 
of ἐστίν (Olsh.), the meaning of aandera 
(Harl.), the absence of the art. before it 
(Auth.), the designation of Christ by 
His historical rather than official name 
(Mey.), and finally the insertion of ὑμᾶς 
(De W.). It is extremely difficult to 
assign an interpretation that shall ac- 
count for and harmonize all of these 
somewhat conflicting details. Perhaps 
the following will be found least open to 
exception. The Apostle, having men- 
tioned the teaching the Ephesians had 
received (ἐδιδάχϑ.), notices first (not 
parenthetically, Beza) the form and 
manner, and then the substance of it. 
Kadws x. τ. A., is thus a predication of 
manner attached to ἐδιδ., and implies, 
not ‘as truth is in Jesus’ (Olsh.), which 
departs from the order and involves a 
modification of the simple meaning of 
ἀλήδ.; nor (as it might have been ex- 
pressed) ‘as is truth,’ abstractedly, — 
but, ‘as is truth —in Jusus,’ embodied, 
as it were, in a personal Saviour and in 
the preaching of His cross. The sub- 
stance of what they were taught is then 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. LY. 22. 


99 5 , e A SN \ 
“ ATOSETSAL ὑμᾶς, KATA τὴν 


specified, not without a faint imperative 
force, by the infin. with ὑμᾶς; the pro- 
noun being added on account of the 
introduction of the new subject Ἰησοῦ 
(Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 288), or more 
probably to mark their contrast, not 
only with the Gentiles before mentioned, 
but with their own former state as im- 
plied in τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. Mey, 
following QCEcum. 2, connects the inf. 
with ἐστὶν ἀλήδ., a construction not 
grammatically untenable (Jelf, Gr. ὁ 
669, comp. Madvig. Synt. ὃ 164. 3), but 
somewhat forced unsatisfactory. 
Stier, after Beng., regards aod. a re- 
sumption of unex. περιπ. ver. 17, but yet 
is obliged to admit a kind of connection 
with e616. «. τ. A. 


and 


22. ἀποϑέσϑαι twas] ‘that ye put 
off ;’ objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὁ 
584) dependent on ἐδιδ., and specifying 
the purport and substance of the teach- 
ing; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 48. a. obs. p. 349, 
and compare Orig. in Cramer Caten. 
The metaphor is obviously ‘a vestibus 
sumpta,’ Beza (Rom. xiii. 12, Col. iil, 
12), and stands in contrast to ἐνδύσ. ver. 
24; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 220. 
The translation of Peile, ‘that you have 
put off,’ is very questionable, as the aor. 
is here only used in accordance with the 
common law of succession of tenses 
(Madvig, Synt. § 171, sq.), and perhaps 
with reference [comp. ἐνδύσασϑαι ver. 24, 
as opp. to ἀνανεοῦσϑαι] to the speedy, 
single nature of the act; but compare 
notes on ch. iii. 4, and on 1 Thess. v. 27. 
Equally untenable is the supposition 
that the inf. is equivalent to the imper. 
(Luther, Wolf); not, however, because 
ὑμᾶς is attached to it (Eadie, for see 
Winer, Gr. § 44. 3), but because this 
usage is only found (excluding Epic 
Greek) in laws, oracles, ete., or in 
clauses marked by an especial warmth 
or earnestness ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 


CHap. ΤΥ. 22; 98. 


EPHESIANS. 


107 


προτέραν ἀναστροφήν, τὸν παλαιὸν avSpwrov τὸν φδειρόμενον 
\ > δ a > 9° rn lal ΄ 
κατὰ τὰς ἐπιδυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης, “ὃ ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δὲ τῷ Πνεύματι 


1χ. 9, p. 358. But few certain instances, 
é.g. Phil. iii. 16 (see notes in loc.), are 
found in the language of the N. T. 
κατὰ τὴν προτ. ἀναστρ.] ‘as con- 
cerns your former conversation,’ ‘quoad 
pristinam vivendi, concupiscendi, et pec- 
candi consuetudinem,’ Corn. a Lap. ; 
specification of that with regard to 
which the ἀποϑέσϑαι τὸν παλ. ἄνϑρ. was 
especially carried out; κατὰ here not 
haying its more usual sense of measure, 
but, as the context seems to require, the 
less definite one of reference to ; compare 
Rom. ix. 5, and see Rost τι. Palm, Lez. 
s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1599. The construction 
τὸν Tad. avdp. κατὰ κ. τ. A. (Jerome, 
(icum.) is opposed to the order, and to 
all principles of perspicuity, — not, how- 
ever, positively to ‘the laws of language,’ 
Eadie, for compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 19, 
2,— and is distinctly untenable. The 
expressive word ἀναστροφὴ is confined 
(in its present sense) to the N. T. (Gal. 
i. 15, 1 Tim. iy. 12, al.), to the Apocry- 
pha (Job. iv. 14, 2 Mace. ν. 8), and to 
later Greek (Polyb. Hist. rv. 82, Arrian, 
Epict. τ. 9); compare Suicer, Thes. Vol. 
11. p-.522- τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνϑρω- 
πον] ‘the old man,’ i. 6. our former 
unconverted self; personification of our 
whole sinful condition before regenera- 
tion (Rom. vi, 6, Col. iii. 9), and op- 
posed to the καινὸς or νέος ἄνϑρωπος 
(ver. 24, Col. iii. 10), the καινὴ κτίσις 
(Gal. vi. 15), or, if regarded in another 
point of view (compare Chrys.), to the 
ἔσω ἄνδρ. ch. iii. 16, Rom. vii. 22; see 
Harless, Hthik. § 22, p. 97, and compare 
Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 352. 
φϑειρόμενον)]Ἵ ‘which waxeth 
corrupt,’ del φϑείρεται, Origen (Cram. 
Caten.) ; further definition and specifica- 
tion of the progressive condition of the 
παλαιὸς ἄνῶρ., ---- πού however with any 
causal force (ed. 1), as this would be 


τὸν 


expressed either by a relative clause (see 
on 1 Tim. ii. 4), or a part. without the 
article. The tense of the part. (pres., — 
not imperf., Beng.) must here be no- 
ticed and pressed, as marking that inner 
process of corruption and moral disinte- 
gration which is not only the character- 
istic (Auth ) but the steadily progressive 
condition of the mad. ἄνϑρ.; contrast 
κτισϑέντα ver. 24, Meyer refers φϑειρ. 
to ‘eternal destruction’ (comp. Hows.), 
regarding the pres. as involving a future 
meaning. This is tenable (see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 2, p. 371), but seems 
inferior to the foregoing, as drawing off 
attention from the true, present nature 
of the progressive @Sopd; compare Gal. 
vi. 8, and see notes zn loc. κατὰ 
has here no direct reference to instru- 
mentality (sc. = διά, Gicum., ὑπό, The- 
oph., compare Syr.), but, as the partial 
antithesis κατὰ Θεὸν (ver. 24) suggests, 
its usual meaning of ‘ accordance τὸ ;’ in 
which, indeed, a faint reference to the 
occasion or circumstances connected 
with, or arising from the accordance 
may sometimes be traced; see notes on 
Phil. ii. 8, and on Tit. iii. 5. Κατὰ τὰς 
ἐπιὸ. 1s, however, here simply ‘in accord- 
ance with the lusts,’ ‘secundum desid- 


aes - f 
eria,’ Vulg., Ἰδιρας ναὶ [secundum 
concupiscentias] Syr.-Phil., 7. e. just as 
the nature and existence of such lusts 
imply and necessitate ; compare Winer, 
Gr. § 49. d, p. 358. 
ΤΉ 5] ‘of Deceit ;’ gen. subjecti, ἣ ἀπάτη 
being taken so abstractedly (Middleton, 
Gr. Art. ν. 1, 2) as to be nearly personi- 
fied (Mey.). The paraphrase ἐπιϑυμίαι 
ἀπατηλαί (Beza, Auth.) is very unsatis- 
factory, and mars the chbvious antithesis 
tO τῆς ἀληϑείας ver. 24. 

23. ἀνανεοῦσϑαι δέ] ‘and that ye 
be renewed ;’ contrasted statement on the 


a / 
τῆς ἀπά- 


108 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV, 23, 24. 


a ‘ « lal 94 Ἂς 5 δύ 4 ‘ \ ” Ν 
του VOOS υμῶὼν και €voucadsab TOV Καίνον ἄνδρωπον τον 


positive side (‘dé alii rei aliam adjicit, ut 
tamen ubivis quedam oppositio declar- 
etur,’ Klotz, Devar., Vol. 11. p. 362) of 
the substance of what they had been 
taught, previously specified on its nega- 
tive side (ver. 22). It has been doubted 
whether dvaveodoSa is pass. or middle. 
The act. is certainly rare (Thom. M. p. 
52, ed. Bern.; comp. Aq. Psalm. xxix. 
2); still, as Harless satisfactorily shows, 
the middle, both in its simple and meta- 
phorical sense, is so completely devoid 
of any reflexive force (comp. even avav- 
gov σεαυτόν, Antonin. 1v. 3), and is prac- 
tically so purely active in meaning, that 
no other form than the passive (opp. to 
Stier), can possibly harmonize with the 
context ; comp. ἀνακαινοῦσϑαι 2 Cor. iv. 
16, Col. iii. 10, and see Hofm. Schriftb. 
Vol. 11. 2,p. 269. The meaning of ἀνά, 
restoration to a former, not necessarily a 
primal state, is noticed by Winer (de Verb. 
c. Prep. 111. p. 10), and the distinction 
between ἀνανεοῦσϑαι (‘recentare, — more 
subjective, and perhaps with prevailing 
ref. to renovation,) and ἀνακαινοῦσδαι 
(‘renovare,’ — more objective, and per- 
haps with prevailing ref. to regeneration) 
by Tittmann, Synon. p. 60; comp. 
Trench, Synon. ὃ Xv11I., and see notes 
on Col. iii. 10. τῷ Πνεύματι 
τοῦ νοός] ‘by the Spirit of your mind.’ 
Tn this unique and somewhat ambiguous 
expression, the gen. vods may be ex- 
plained either as (a) appositive, ‘ spiritus 
qu mens vocatur’ August. de Trin. 
xiv. 16; so appy. Taylor, Duct. Dub. τ. 
1. 7, comp. ib. on Repent. 11. 2. 12 : — (δ) 
partitive, ‘the governing spirit of the 
mind’ De W., Eadie, τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ νόος 
πνευματικήν, Theodoret ;— or (6) pos- 
sessive, ‘the (Divine) Spirit, united with 
the human πνεῦμα (comp. Hooker, Hcl. 
Pol. τ. 7.1), with which the νοῦς, as sub- 
ject, is endued, and of which it is the 
receptaculum ;’ τῷ Πν. τῷ ἐν TE νῷ, 


Chrysost. Of these (a) is manifestly, 
as Bp. Bull designates it, ‘a flat and 
dull interpretation ;’ (0), even if not 
metaphysically or psychologically doubt- 
ful, is exegetically unsatisfactory ; (c) on 
the contrary, now adopted by Mey., has 
a full scriptural significance; τὸ Tv. is 
the Holy Spirit, which by its union with 
the human πνεῦμα, becomes the agent 
of the ἀνακαίνωσις τοῦ νοός Rom. xii. 2, 
and the νοῦς is the seat of His working, 
—where ματαιότης (ver. 17) once was, 
but now καινότης. The dat. is thus not, 
as in (a) and (0) a mere dat. ‘ of refer- 
ence to’ (ver. 17), but a dat. znstrumenti, 
—scil. διὰ Πν. ἐστι ἀνακαίνισις, Gicum., 
ὅπερ avaveot ἡμᾶς, Origen (ap. Cram. 
Caten.) ; see Tit. iii. 5, and comp. Col- 
lect for Christmas Day. This 
interpr. is ably defended by Bull, Disc. 
V. p. 477 (Engl. Works, Oxf. 1844) ; 
see also Waterl. Regen. Vol. v. p. 434, 
Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 8, p. 227, and Fritz. 


Nov. Opuse. Acad. p. 224. The only 
modification, or rather explanation 


which it has seemed necessary to add to 
the view in ed. 1, is that τῷ Tv. (as 
above stated) is not the Holy Spirit 
regarded exclusively and per se, but as 
in a gracious union with the human 
spirit. With this slight rectification, the 
third interpr. seems to have a very strong 
claim on our attention; contr. Wordsw. 
in loc. ; comp. also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- 
chol. 1v. 5, p. 144. 

24. καὶ ἐνδύσασϑαι] ‘and put 
on;’ further and more distinct state- 
ment on the positive side corresponding 
to the ἀποϑέσϑαι on the negative; the 
change of tense (aor.) being appy. in- 
tentional; see notes on ver. 22. The 
arguments of Anabaptists based on this 
verse are answered by Taylor, Liberty 
of Proph. § 18. ad. 31. It is very im- 
probable that there is here any allusion 
to baptism: the ‘putting on the new 


Crap. IV. 24, 


EPHESIANS. 


109 


\ \ / > , \ e / a > / 
κατὰ Θεὸν κτισϑέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληδείας. 


man.’ refers to the renovation of the heart 
afterwards ; comp. Waterl. Regen. Vol. 
vy. p. 434. The metaphorical and dog- 
matical meaning is investigated in Sui- 
cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 11138. 
τὸν καινὸν ἄνϑρ.] ‘the new man.’ 
It is scarcely necessary to observe that 
the kaw. ἄνῶρ. is not Christ (Zanch. ap. 
Pol. Syn.), but is in direct contrast to 
τὸν mad. ἄνῶρ., and denotes ‘the holy 
form of human life which results from 
redemption,’ Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 3. 
ad. fin., Vol. 11. p. 392 (Clark) ; comp. 
Jol. iii. 10, where νέος ἄνῶρ. stands in 
contrast to a former state (Wordsw. aptly 
compares Matt. ix. 17, Mark 11. 22, Luke 
v. 38), as καινὸς here to one needing re- 
newal ; see notes in loc., and Harl. Ethik, 
ὁ 22, p.97. The patristic interpretations 
are given in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 
352. τὸν κατὰ © κτισϑὃ.] 
‘which after God hath been created,’ — not 
‘is created,’ Auth., but ‘ qui creatus est,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., sim. Copt., with the 
proper force of the aor. in ref. to the 
past creation in Christ: the new man is, 
as it were, a holy garb or personality not 
created in the case of each individual be- 
liever, but created once for all (‘initio rei 
Christian,’ Beng.), and then individu- 
ally assumed. The key to this impor- 
tant passage is undoubtedly the striking 
parallel, Col. iii. 10, τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαι- 
νούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ KTI- 
σαντος αὐτόν; from which it would al- 
most seem certain (1) that κτισϑέντα 
in our present passage contains an al- 
lusion to Gen. i. 27, and suggests a spir- 
itual connection between the first crea- 
tion of man in Adam and the second 
new creation in Christ; and (2) that 
κατὰ Θεόν, as illustrated by κατ᾽ εἰκ. 
k. τ. A. Col. l.c., is rightly explained as 
‘ad exemplum Dei:’ comp. Gal. iv. 28, 
Gen. i. 27, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ, 
p- 358. Thus, then, from this passage, 


compared with that from Col. we may 
appy. deduce the great dogmatic truth, 
— ‘ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id 
est, secundum imaginem et similitudi- 
nem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu re- 
ciperemus,’ Ireneus, Her. 111. 20, p. 
245 (ed. Grabe) ; see notes on Ool. l. c. 
The justice of this deduction is doubted 
by Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, 1v. 8, Vol. τι. 
p- 392), but without sufficient reason ; 
see esp. the admirable treatise of Bp. 
Bull, State of Man, etc., p. 445 sq. (Eng- 
lish Works, Oxf. 1844), and Delitzsch, 
Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p.51. On the na- 
ture and process of this revival of the 
image of God, see Jackson, Creed, Book 
vill. 35. 1. 
6o0167.| ‘in righteousness and holiness ;’ 
tokens and characteristics of the divine 
image ; ἐν defining the state in which a 
similitude to that image consists and ex- 
hibits itself (Olsh.). The usual distine- 
tion between these two substantives, ὅσι- 
ὀτης μὲν πρὸς Θεόν, δικαιοσύνη δὲ πρὸς av- 
ϑρώπους Sewpeitat, Philo, de Abrah. Vol. 
11. p. 30, ed. Mang. (comp. Tittm. 
Synon. p. 25), is not here wholly appli- 
cable; as Harless shows from 1 Tim. ii. 
8, Heb. vii. 7, the term ὁσιότης [on the 
doubtful derivation, see Pott, Ht. lorsch. 
Vol. 1. p. 126, contrasted with Benfey, 
Wurzellex. Vol. τ. p. 436] involves not 
merely the idea of ‘ piety,’ but of ‘holy 
purity,’ τὸ καϑαρόν, Chrys. There is 
thus a faint contrast suggested between 
Six. and πλεονεξία in ver. 19, and ὁσιότ. 
and ἀκαϑαρσία in the present verse. Ol- 
shausen (in an excellent note on this 
verse) contrasts this passage, Col. iii. 10, 
and Wisdom, ii. 23 (noticed also by 
Bull), as respectively alluding to the 
Divine image under its ethical, intellec- 
tual, and physical aspects. τῆς 
ἀλη εἰα 5] ‘of Truth;’ exactly opp. to 
τῆς ἀπάτης ver. 22, and of course to be 
connected with both preceding nouns. 


ἐν δικαιοσ. καὶ 


110 


Speak the truth, do not 
cherish anger, or practise 
theft: utter no corrupt 
speech; be not bitter. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 25, 26. 


Ὁ Avo ἀποϑέμενοι TO ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήδειαν 


\ a ͵ ας 
ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσμὲν 


ἀλλήλων μέλη. “᾿Οργίζεσδε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε: ὁ ἥλιος μὴ 


The adjectival solution (Beza, Auth.) 
wholly destroys the obvious and forcible 
antithesis, and the reading καὶ ἀληδϑείᾳ 
[DIFG; Clar.; Cypr., Hil., al.] has no 
claims on our attention. 

25. διό] ‘Wherefore ;’ in reference to 
the truths expressed in the verses imme- 
diately preceding: εἰπὼν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄν- 
ϑρωπον καϑολικῶς, λοιπὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ὕπο- 
γράφει κατὰ μέρος, Chrys. The previous 
mention of ἀλήϑεια seems to have sug- 
gested the first exhortation. On the use 
of διὸ in the N. T., see notes on Gal. iv. 
31. ἀποδέμενοι TO Wevdos| 
“having put off’ (aor., with ref. to the 
priority of the act; comp. notes on ver. 
8) lying, or rather ‘falsehood, in a fully 
abstract sense (John viii. 44), — not 
merely τὸ ψεύδεσϑαι, scil. τὸ λαλεῖν 
ψευδῆ: falsehood in every form is a 
chief characteristic of the παλαιὸς ἄν- 
Spwmos, and, as Miiller well shows, 
comes naturally from that selfishness 
which is the essence of all sin; see 
Doctr. of Sin. The positive exhortation 
‘which follows is considered by Jerome 
not improbably a reminiscence of Za- 
char. viii. 16, λαλεῖτε ἀλήϑειαν ἕκαστος 
πρὸς [is the change to μετὰ intentional, 
as better denoting ‘inter-communion,’ 
ete. 1] τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ. For a short 
sermon on this text see August. Serm. 
ctvi. Vol. v. p. 907 (ed. Migne). 
ὅτι ἐσμέν x. 7.A.] ‘because we are 
members one of another. The force of 
the exhortation does not rest on any 
mere ethical considerations of our obli- 
gations to society, or on any analogy 
that may be derived from the body 
(Chrys.), but on the deeper truth, that 
in being members of one another we 
are members of the body of Christ 
(Rom. xii. 5), of Him who was ἡ ἀλή- 
Sea καὶ ἡ ζωή ; see Harl. in loc. 


26. ὀργίζεσϑε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτά.- 
νετε] ‘Be angry, and sin not;’ a direct 
citation from the LXX, Psalm iv. 5. 
The original words are 380 mats Tara 
which, though appy. more correctly trans- 
lated ‘tremble and, ete.’ [Gesen., Ewald, 
J. Olsh. opp. to Hengst. and Hirzig}, 
are adduced by St. Paul from the Greek 
version, as best embodying a salutary 
and practical precept; comp. ver. 25. 
The command itself has received many 
different, though nearly all ultimately 
coincident explanations. (1) The usual 
interpretation ‘si contingat vos irasci’ 
(‘though ye be angry,’ Butler, Serm. 
vitt.; still maintained by Zyro, Stud. u. 
Krit. 1841, p. 681 sq.), is founded on the 
union of two imperatives in Hebrew 
(Gen. xlii. 18, Prov. xx. 13, Gesen. Gr. 
§ 127. 2), and, in fact, any cultivated 
language, to denote condition and result. 
This, however, is here inapplicable, for 
the solution would thus be not ὀργιζόμε- 
vot μὴ Guap., but ἐὰν ὀργιζήσϑε, οὐκ auap- 
τήσετε [not -cecde in N. T.], which can- 
not be intended. (2) Winer (Gr. ὃ 43, 
1. obs. p. 360 sq.) far more plausibly con- 
ceives the first imper. permissive, the 
second jussive: comp. the yersion of 
Symm. ὀργ. ἀλλὰ μὴ auapt. It is true 
that a permissive imper. is found occa- 
sionally in the N. T. (1 Cor. vii. 15, 
perhaps Matt. xxvi. 45), but the close 
union by καὶ of two imperatives of simi- 
lar tense, but with a dissimilar imperati- 
val force, is, as Meyer has observed, logi- 
cally unsatisfactory. (3) The fol- 
lowing interpr. seems most simple : both 
imperatives are jussive ; as, however, the 
second imper. is used with μή, its jussive 
force is thereby enhanced, while the affir- 
mative command is, by juxta-position, 
so much obscured as to be in effect little 
more than a participial member, though 


CuHap. IV. 27. 
’ , ’ \ 
ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ 


its intrinsic jussive force is not to be 
denied. There is undoubtedly an anger 
against sin, for instance, against deliber- 
ate falsehood, as the context appy. sug- 
gests (see Chrys.), which a good man 
not only may, but .ought to feel (see 
Suicer, Zhesaur., Vol. 11. p. 504), and 
which is very different from the ὀργὴ for- 
bidden in yer. 31: compare Trench, 
Synon. ὃ xxxvuii. and on the subject of 
resentment generally, Butler, Serm. v111. 
and the good note of Wordsw. zn loc. 

ὁ ἥλιος x. T.A.] ‘let not the sun go 
down on your irritation.” The command 
is the Christian parallel of the Pythago- 
rean custom cited by Hammond, Wetst., 
and others, εἴποτε προαχϑεῖεν eis λοιδο- 
ρίας tm ὀργῆς, πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι, Tas 
δεξιὰς ἐμβάλλοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμ- 
evot διελύοντο, Plutarch, de Am. Frat. 
488 Β [ὃ 17]. There does not appear 
any allusion to the possible effect of 
night upon anger, μήπως ἡ νὺξ πλέον ἀν- 
ακαύσῃ Td πῦρ διὰ τῶν ἐννοιῶν, Theophyl. 
(see Suicer, Thes. 8. v. ἥλιος 111. 2), but 
to the fact that the day ended with the 
sunlight: ‘quare si quem irascentem nox 
occuparet, is iram retinebat in proximum 
diem,’ Estius. τῷ παροργισμῷ] 
‘irritation,’ ‘exasperation, and therefore 
to be distinguished from ὀργή, which 
expresses the more permanent state. 
The word is non-classical and rare, but 
is found 1 Kings xy. 30, 2 Kings xix. 3, 
where it is joined with ϑλίψις and ἐλεγ- 
μός, ib. xxiii. 26, Nehem. ix. 18, and 
Jerem, xxi. 5 (Alex.), where it is joined 
with ϑυμὸς and ὀργή. The mapa is not 
merely intensive (Mey.), nor even indic- 
ative of a deflection from a right rule 
(Wordsw.), but probably points to the 
irritating circumstance or object which 
provoked the ὀργή ; comp. παροξύνω, and 
Rost u. Palm, Lex. 5. v. 1v. 1, Vol. 11. 
p. 670. The article before παρορ- 
γισμῷ is omitted by Lachm. with AB; 


EPHESIANS. 


111 


τῷ παρο Dd ὑμῶ 7 μηδὲ Ovo j 2 
( ροργισμῷ ὑμῶν, μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ 


al., —but appy. incorrectly, as the exter- 
nal authority is not strong, and the omis- 
sion easy to be accounted for before the 
sufficiently definite ὑμῶν. 

27. μηδέ] ‘nor yet;’ ‘also do not ;’ 
μηδὲ here serving to connect a new clause 
with the preceding (Jelf, Gr. § 776), on 
the principle that δὲ in negative sen- 
tences has often practically much of the 
conjunctive force which καὶ has in affirm- 
ative sentences; see Wex, Antig. Vol. 
11. p. 157. It must, however, be surely 
very incorrect to say that the clauses ‘are 
closely connected, and that μηδὲ indi- 
cates this sequence,’ (Eadie); there is a 
connection between the clauses, and μηδὲ 
has practically a conjunctive force (per 
enumerationem), but it is always of such 
a nature as δὲ would lead us to expect, 
‘sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte 
connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu 
accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
707; see esp. Franke, de Part. Neg. 
Part 11. 2, p.6. On the most appropriate 
translation of μὴ---μηδὲ, see notes on 1 
Thess. ii. 8. (Transl.). The reading 
μήτε (Rec. with a few mss. ; Chrys. (1), 
Theod.) seems clearly to be rejected 
(opp. to Matth.), not only on critical, 
but even on grammatical grounds, as the 
position of μὴ in the previous clause 
shows that it cannot be regarded as 
equivalent to μήτε, which supposition, or 
the strictest union of the clauses (Franke, 
§ 25, p. 27) can alone justify the abnor- 
mal sequence; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, 
p- 433, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 709. 
δίδοτε τόπον] ‘give room,’ ‘ne detis 
viam’ ( fénot), /Eth.; scil. ‘give no room 
or opportunity to the Evil One to be 
active and operative ;’ comp. Rom. xii. 
19, and see exx. of this use of τόπον 
διδόναι in West. Rom. 1. c., Loesner, Obs. 
p. 263. τῷ διαβόλῳᾳ)] ‘to the 
Devil’ (ch. vi. 11); the constant and 
regular meaning of 6 διαβ. (subst.) in 


119 EPHESIANS. Cuap. IV. 28. 


S / id a 
διαβόλῳ. *‘O κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω 


28. ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ayaddv| The variations of reading in this passage are 
great, and, considering the simplicity of the passage, difficult to account for. The 
choice appears to lie between four. (a) That in the text with AD'EFG ; 37. 57. 
73. 116; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt., Sahid., th., Arm.; Bas., Naz., Epiph. ; 
Hier., Aug., Pel. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 1, Riick., Wordsw.) (b) Td ay. ταῖς id. xep. 
with K; mss. (10); Syr. (Philox.); Theodoret. (6) Tats yep. τὸ ay. with B: 
Amit.; Ambrosiaster (Meyer). (4) Td ay. τ. xep. with L; great majority of mss. ; 
Slavy.; Chrys., Dam., Theophyl, Gicum. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2 and 7, 
Alf.) Harless and Olshausen (see Mill, Prolegom. p. 168) favor a 5th and shorter 
reading épy. τ. xep., after Tertull. de Resurr. 45, urging the probability of ἰδ. being 
interpolated from 1 Cor. iv. 12, and τὸ @y. from Gal. vi. 10. It will be seen, how- 
ever, that Gal. vi. 10 contains no such allusion to manual labor as might have sug- 
gested a ref. to it; and if ἰδίαις (see notes) is maturely considered, it will seem to 
have a proper force in this place, though not at first sight apparent. As it seems, 
then, more likely that ἰδίαις was an intentional omission (its force not being per- 
ceived) than an interpolation from 1 Cor. iv. 12, we retain (a) as not improbable 
on internal grounds, and as supported by a preponderance of external evidence, 
which the internal objections hitherto adduced do not seem sufficient to invalidate. 


the N. T.; not excluding John vi. 70, 
and 1 Tim. iii. 6; see esp. Stier, Red. 
Jesu, Vol. 1v. p. 845. It is obvious that 
Σατανᾶς (AMth.) is more a personal appel- 


° » 
lation; 6 διαβ. (epost [calumnia- 


tori] Syr.) a name derived from the fear- 
ful nature and, so to say, office of the 
Evil One; the usage, however, of the 
N. T. writers is by no means uniform. 
St. John (in Gosp. and Epp.) once only 
uses the former; St. Mark never the lat- 
ter; St. Paul more frequently the for- 
mer, the latter being only found in this 
and the pastoral Epp. (and once in 


Heb.). The subject deserves fuller in- 
vestigation. On the nature of this Evil 


Spirit generally, see the curious and 
Jearned work of Mayer, Historia Diaboli 
(ed. 2, Tubing, 1780), and in ref. to the 
question of his real personal nature, the 
sound remarks on p. 130 sq.; compare 
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18. 

28. ὁ κλέπτων] ‘He who steals, the 
stealer ;? not imperf. ‘qui furabatur,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., nor for 6 κλέψας, but a 
participial substantive ; see Winer, Gr. 


§ 57, p. 317, and notes on Gal. i. 23. 
All attempts to dilute the proper force 
of this word are wholly untenable; 6 
κλέπτων (not 6 κλέπτης on the one hand, 
nor 6 κλέψας on the other) points to ‘ the 
thievish character’ (‘qui furatur,’ Copt.), 
whether displayed in more coarse and 
open, or more refined and hidden prac- 
tices of the sin. Theft, though gener- 
ally, was not universally condemned by 
Paganism ; see the curious and valuable 
work of Pfanner, Theol. Gentilis, x1. 25, 
p- 336. For a sermon on this text, see 
Sherlock, Serm. xxxvir. Vol. 11. p. 227 
(ed. Hughes). μᾶλλον Sel ‘but 
(on the contrary) rather ;’ οὐ γὰρ apket 
παύσασϑαι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ Kal τὴν 
ἐναντίαν αὐτῆς ὁδὸν μετελϑεῖν, Theoph. ; 
see also Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 111. 13. 6, 
and notes on Gal. iv. 9, where, however, 
the corrective force is more strongly 
marked. ταῖς ἰδίαις χέρσινΪ] 
«with his own hands. The pronominal 
adjective ἴδιος (Donalds. Crat. § 139), 
like οἰκεῖος in the Byzantine writers, 
and ‘ proprius’ in later Latin (see Krebs, 
Antibarb, p. 646), appears sometimes in 


Cuap. IV. 29. EPHES 


IANS. 9 


9 


11 


ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ὠγαϑόν, va ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ 
χρείαν ἔχοντι. ™ Πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ 


the N. T. to be nearly pleonastie (sec 
exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7, p. 139); 
here, however, there appears an inten- 
tional force in the use of the word. The 
thievish man lives by the labors and 
hands of others; he is now himself to 
labor, and with his own hands, — those 
very hands that robbed others (Beng.), 
to work, not at τὸ κακόν, but at τὸ ἀγα- 
ὃόν; see Riick. in loc. τὸ aya- 
Sy] ‘that which is good, ‘that which 
belongs to the category of what is good 
and honest,’ τὸν δίκαιον πορισμόν, Schol. 
ap. Cramer, Caten. ; “τὸ &ya%. antitheton 
ad furtum, prius manu piceata male 
commissum,’ Beng. There may perhaps 
be also involved in τὸ &y. the notion of 
what is beneficial instead of detrimental 
to others ; comp. notes on Gal. vi. 10. 
ἵνα x. 7. λ.] ‘in order that he may have,’ 
—not merely ‘what is enough for his 
own wants,’ but ‘to give to him that need- 
eth ;’ the true specific object of all Chris- 
tian labor (Olsh.); comp. Schoettg. Hor. 
Vol sre iu 78: 

29. Πᾶς.... μή] The negation must 
be joined with the verb; what is com- 
manded is the non-utterance of every 
campos λόγος. On this Hebraistic struc- 
ture, see Winer, Gr. ὁ 26. 1, p. 155, and 
notes on Gal. ii. 16. σαπρός 
λόγο 5] ‘corrupt, worthless speech,’ ‘sermo 
malus,’ Clarom., Vulg., Copt., sim. 
Goth., — not necessarily ‘filthy,’ Hows. 
(comp. Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx11., though 
he also admits the more general mean- 
ing), as this is specially forbidden in ch. 
v. 4, nor again quite so strong as ‘ detes- 
tabilis,’ Syr., but rather ‘pravus,’ /Eth., 
esp. in ref. to whatever is profitless and 
unedifying (Chrys.), e.g. αἰσχρολογία, λοι- 
δορία, συκοφαντία, βλασφημία, ψευδολογία, 
καὶ τὰ τούτοις προσόμοια, Theod. The 
exact shade of meaning will always be 
best determined by the context. Here 

15 


σαπρὸς is clearly opposed, not τῷ διδόντι 
χάριν (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298), but 
to ἀγαϑὸς πρὸς oikod. τῆς χρείας ; Wetst. 
cites Arrian, Hpict. 11. 15, ὑγιὲς opp. to 
σαπρὸν kal καταπίπτον. On the general 
metaphorical use, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
377, and the exx. collected by Kypke, 
loc. cit. a&ya%ds| ‘good,’ τ. 6. ‘suit- 
able for,’ ὅπερ οἰκοδομεῖ τὸν πλησίον, 
Chrys. ; instances of this use of ἀγαϑός, 
with eis πρός, and the inf., are of suffi- 
ciently common occurrence ; see Rost u. 
Palm, Zer. s. v., exx. in Kypke, Obs. 
Vol. 11.*p. 298, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 
Ῥ-. 2319. πρὸς οἰκοδ. τῆς χρε- 
tas] ‘for edification in respect of the need,’ 
‘ad adificationem opportunitatis,’ Vulg. 
(Amit.). Neither the article nor the 
exact nature of the genitive has been 
sufficiently explained. It seems clear 
that τῆ ς χρείας cannot be merely ‘qua 
sit opus’ (Erasm.), but must specify the 
peculiar need in question (observe εἴ 
tis), the χρεία which immediately presses, 
— τῆς παρούσης χρείας, Cicum. ΤΊ 
would seem to follow then that the gen. 
xpelas is not a mere gen. of quality 
(‘seasonable edification,’ Peile) nor in 
any way an abstr. for concr. (‘those who 
have need,’ Riick., Olsh., comp. Eadie), 
nor, by inversion, for an accus. (‘use of 
edifying, Auth., compare Syr.), but is 
simply a gen. of ‘remote reference’ (see 
Winer, Gr. 30. 2, p. 169), or, as it has 
been termed, of ‘the point of view’ 
(comp. Scheuerl. Syn. § 18, p. 129) — 
‘edifying as regards the need,’ 7. e. which 
satisfies the need, ἀναγκαῖον ὄν τῇ προκει- 
μένῃ χρείᾳ as rightly paraphrased by 
Theoph¥l. On the practical bearing of 
this passage, see esp. 4 sermons by Bp. 
Taylor, Serm. xx11.—xxy. Vol. 1. p. 
734 sq. (Lond. 1836), and Harl., Ethik, 
§ 50, p. 261. The reading πίστεως, 
though found in DIE1FG ; Vulg. (not 


114 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 30. 


5 / 2 » "᾽ od \ Ν ’ \ a / ied 
EKTTOPEVET YW, GAN εἴ TLS ἀγαδδὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα 


δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, 


” καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον 


ῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέραν ἀποχλυτρώσεω 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσϑητε εἰς ἡμέρ ρ ς. 


Amit., Fuld.) and some Latin Vvy., 
Goth.; Bas., Naz., al. (partially ap- 
proved of by Griesb.), is still certainly 
to be rejected both as inferior in external 
authority to χρείας, and as an almost self- 
evident correction. δῷ χάριν] ‘may 
impart a blessing.” The ambiguous term 
χάρις has been explained (a) as χάρις 
Θεοῦ, Gicum. (who, however, does not 
refer to Rom. 1. 11 for a proof, as Eadie 
singularly asserts), ‘salutis adminicula,’ 
Caly.; (b) as little more than ϑυμηδία ; 
801. ἵνα φανῇ δεκτός τοῖς ἀκούουσι, 
Theod., ‘ut invenietis gratiam,’ ΖΡ 1}.- 
Pol., comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, 
—but remove the ref. to Eur. Suppl. 
414, which is not in point; (c) as retain- 
ing its simple and regular meaning in 
connection with διδόναι, ‘favor, benefit’ 
{(Harl, Olsh., Meyer). Of these, (c) is 
much the most probable (see Exod. iii. 
21, Psalm Ixxxiii. 12 compared with 
ver. 13; and perhaps James iv. 6, 1 Pet. 
v. 5); still, as χάρις has so notably 
changed its meaning in the N. T., it 
seems uncritical, even in this phrase, to 
deny the reference of χάρις to a spiritual 
‘benefit ;’ see Stier zn loc. The most 
exact transl. then, here seems ‘ blessing’ 
(‘minister grace,’ Auth., is ambiguous), 
as it hints at the theological meaning, 
and also does not wholly obscure the 
classical and idiomatic meaning of the 
phrase. 

30. καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε κ. τ. λ.] ‘and 
grieve not the Holy Spirit of God ;’ not a 
new, unconnected exhortation (Lachm.), 
but a continued warning against the use 
of mas λόγος σαπρὸς by showing its fear- 
ful results; ἐὰν εἰπῇς ῥῆμα σαπρόν, καὶ 
ἀνάξιον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ στόματος, οὐκ 
ἄνϑρωπον ἐλύπησας, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πν. τοῦ 
Θεοῦ, Theoph. The tacit assumption 
clearly is that the Spirit dwelt within 


them (see Basil, Spir. Sanct. x1x. 50, 
Hermas, Past. Mand. 10), and that, 
too, as the solemn and emphatic title 
τὸ Πν. τὸ ἅγιον tov Θεοῦ and the 
peculiar term λυπεῖτε, further suggest, 
in His true holy personality; compare 
Peason, Creed, Art. vir. Vol. 1. p. 
366 (ed. Burt.), and for an excellent 
sermon on this text, see Andrewes, 
Serm. v1. Vol. 111. p. 201 sq. (A. C. 
Libr.) ; see also a very good practical 
sermon by Bp. Hall, Serm. xxxvt. Vol. 


v. p. 489 sq. (Talboys). ἐν & 
ἐσφραγίσϑητε) ‘in whom ye were 


sealed,’ — not ‘quo,’ Goth., Arm. (com- 
pare ‘per quem,’ Beza), but ‘in quo,’ 
Clarom., Vulg., ‘in whom, as the holy 
sphere and element of the sealing.’ 
This clause seems intended to enhance 
still more the warning by an appeal to 
the blessings they had received from the 
Holy Spirit; εἶτα καὶ 7 προσϑήκη τῆς 
εὐεργεσίας, ἵνα μείζων γένηται ἣ κατηγο- 
pia, Chrysost. There does not appear, 
then, here any reminiscence of Isaiah 
Ixiil. 10, παρώξυναν τὸ Πν. τὸ Gy. (cited 
by Harl.), which would have given the 
warning a different tone. For the ex- 
planation of these words, see notes on 
ch. i. 13, and for the doctrinal applica- 
tions, Hammond in loc., Petayv. de Trin. 
viii. 5. 3, Vol. 11. 823 sq., and notes on 
ch. i. 13. For some comments on this 
clause, see Andrewes, Serm. vi. pre- 
viously cited, and another serm. by Bp. 
Hall, Serm. xxxvit. Vol. y. p. 504 
(Talboys). 
λυτρώσεω 5] ‘for the day of redemp- 
tion,’ for the day on which the redemp- 
tion will be fully realized ; see exx. of 
this use of the gen. in definitions of time 
in Winer, Gir. § 30. 2, p. 169. On the 
meaning of ἀπολύτρωσις, see notes on 
ch. i, 14, and on ‘final perseverance,’ of 


> c / 5 
εἰς ἡμέραν amro- 


Cuap. IV. 31, 32. 


EPHESIANS. 


115 


Ἵ Πᾶσα πικρία καὶ Supos καὶ ὀργὴ καὶ κραυγὴ καὶ βλασφημία 


2 ’ a ‘ , 5 
aprnto ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ: ™ yiveoSe δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους 


which Eadie here finds an affirmation 
(comp. Coce. in loc.), see Thorndike, Cov. 
of Grace, ch. xxx1. Vol. 111. p. 615 sq. 
(A. C. Libr.). 

31. πᾶσα πικρία] ‘all bitterness,’ 
i. €., ‘every form of it’ (see notes on ch. 
i. 8), and that not merely as shown in 
expressions, ‘sermo mordax,’ but, as the 
context suggests, in feeling and disposi- 
tion (see Acts viii. 23, Heb. xii. 15), 
πικρία marking the prevailing tempera- 
ment and frame of mind; ὁ τοιοῦτος καί 
βαρύϑυμός ἐστι καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀνίησι τὴν 
ψυχήν, ἀεὶ σύννους dv καὶ σκυϑρωπός, 
Chrys. The contrast is not merely γλυ- 
κύτης (comp. Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.), but 
χρηστότης ; see Wetst. on Rom. iii. 14, 
and for an able sermon on this text (the 
obligations and advantages of good- 
will), Whichcote, Serm, txxx11. Vol. 
Iv. p. 198 sq. ϑυμὸς καὶ ὀργή) 
‘wrath and anger ;’ the emanations from, 
and products of the πικρία; ῥίζα ϑυμοῦ 
καὶ ὀργῆς πικρία, Chrys. With regard 
to the distinction between these two 
words, it may be observed that ϑυμὸς is 
properly the agitation and commotion to 
which πικρία gives rise (ἣ ἐναρχομένη ἐπί 
τινα γενέσϑαι ὀργή, Orig. Cram. Cat., 
comp. Diog. Laert. vir. 1. 63.114), ὀργὴ 
the more settled habit of the mind (4 
ἑτοίμη καὶ ἐνεργητικὴ πρὸς τὴν τιμωρίαν 
τοῦ ἠδικηκέναι νομιζομένου, Origen, ib.) ; 
see Tittm. Synon. p. 132, Trench, Synon. 
5. v., and notes on Gal. vy. 20. 
κραυγή καὶ βλασφημία] ‘clamor 
and evil speaking ;’ outward manifesta- 
tions of the foregoing vices ; ἵππος γάρ 
ἐστι ἀναβάτην φέρων ἣ κραυγὴ τὴν ὀργήν, 
Chrys. The distinction between the two 
words is sufficiently obvious. Kpavyi) is 
the cry of strife (‘in quem erumpunt 
homines irati,’ Est.) ; βλασφημία, a more 
enduring manifestation of inward anger, 


that shows itself in reviling, — not, in 
the present case, God, but our brethren 
(λοιδορίαι, Chrys.) ; it has thus nearly 
the same relation to xp. that ὀργὴ has to 
Suuds ; see Col. iii. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 4, and 
comp. Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2. For a good 
practical sermon against evil speaking 
see Barrow, Serm. xvi. Vol. τ. p. 447. 
κακίᾳ] ‘malice ;’ the genus to which all 
the above-mentioned vices belong, or 
rather the active principle to which they 
are all due (comp. ch. vi. 23), — unchar- 
itableness in all its forms, ‘animi pravi- 
tas, humanitati et squitati opposita,’ 
Caly. ; comp. Rom. i. 28, Col. iii. 8, and 
on the difference between this word and 
πονηρία (its outcoming and manifesta- 
tion), see Trench, Synon. § x1. 

32. γίνεσϑε δὲ] ‘but become ye;’ 
contrasted exhortation: not ‘be ye,’ 
Auth., Alf, but ‘vairpaiduh’ ffiatis] 
Goth., — there were evil elements among 
them that were yet to be taken away; 
SeerChavienle Lachm, omits δὲ with 
B; 4 mss.; Clem., Dam., al.; but this 
omission as well as the variation οὖν [Dt 
FG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Boern. | 
seems due to a corrector who did not 
perceive the antithesis between the com- 
mands in the two verses. χρηστοί, 
εὔσπλαγχνοι) ‘kind, tender-hearted.’ 
On the former of these words (‘sweet in 
disposition’), comp. notes on Gal. y. 22, 
and Tittmann, Synon. p. 140. The lat- 
ter εὔσπλαγχνος occurs Orat. Manass. 6, 
1 Pet. iii. 8, and designates the exhibi- 
tion of that merciful feeling, of which 
the σπλάγχνα were the imaginary seat ; 
comp. Col. iii. 12, and notes zn Joc., and 
for additional exx., see Polyc. Phil. 5, 6, 
Clem. Rom. Cor. i. 54, Test. XII. Patr. 
p- 537. The substantive εὐσπλαγχνία 
is found in classical Greek, in the sense 
of ‘good heart,’ ‘courage’ (comp. Eurip. 


110 


EPHESIANS. 


CHAP Vee 


, ν "ἢ € a \ \ e X\ "ἃ 
χρηστοί, εὔσπλαγχνοι, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς καδὼς καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν 


Ὁ ! δὰ τὰν 
Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο υμιν. 
Strive then to imitate God, 


and, like Christ, to walk in 
love. 


Rhesus, 192), and also in the primary 
and physical sense (comp. Hippocr. 89, 
ed. Foes.), but the adjective is appy. rare. 
χαριζόμενοι ‘ forgiving 
each other ;’ participle of concomitant 
act, specifying the manner in which the 
χρηστότης x. τ. A. were to be manifested ; 
comp. Col. iii. 13 and notes in loc. Ori- 
gen (Cram. Caten.) calls attention to the 
use of ἑαυτοῖς (what was done to another 
was really done to themselves), but this 
appears here somewhat doubtful; see 
notes on Col./.c., and for exx. of the 
use of ἑαυτοῖς for the personal pronoun, 
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 54, 2. καδὼς καὶ ὃ 
Θεός] ‘even as God,’ ‘as God also;’ 
καϑὼς (as in ch. i. 4) having a slightly 
argumentative force, while καὶ introduces 
a tacit comparison; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 635 sq., and notes on Phil. iv. 
12. The two combined do not then 
simply compare, but argue from an ex- 
ample (Harl.),— τὸν Θεὸν παράγει eis 
ὑπόδειγμα, Theophyl.; comp. ch. v. 2, 
25, 29. The context seems clearly to 
show that the meaning of χαριζόμενοι 
(and hence of ἐχαρίσατο) is not ‘donan- 
tes,’ Clarom., Vulg., ‘largientes, libenter 
dantes,’ Erasm. (comp. Orig. 1. ap. 
Cram. Cat.), but ‘condonantes,’ Copt., 
Syr., Goth., συγγνωμικοί, Chrys.: they 
were not only to be χρηστοὶ and εὔσ- 
πλαγχνοι but also merciful and forgiving, 
following the example of Him who ‘ pree- 
buit se benignum, misericordem, — con- 
donantem,’ Beng. The reading is 
doubtful: Zachm. reads ἡμῖν with B?D 
EKL; 25 mss.; Amit., Syr. (both), al. ; 
Orig. (Cram. Cat.). Chrys. (Comm.), 
Theod., al., — but scarcely on sufficient 
authority, as the pronoun of the first 
person might have been probably sug- 


éauTots| 


V. Γίνεσδε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς τέκνα 


gested by the ἡμᾶς in ch. v. 2: see crit. 
note in loc. ἐν Χριστῷ) ‘in 
Christ ;’ not ‘for the sake of,’ Auth., nor 
‘per Christum,’ Caly., but ‘in Him,’ 
7. e., in giving Him to be a propitiation 
for our sins, μετὰ τοῦ κινδύνου τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σφαγῆς αὐτοῦ, Theoph.; 
comp. 2 Cor. y. 19. 

CuarTtEeR V. 1. γίνεσϑε οὖν 
κι τ᾿ A.| ‘Become then followers (imitators ) 
of God ;’ resumption of the previous 
γίνεσϑε, ch. v. 32, the οὖν deriving its 
force and propriety from the concluding 
words of the last verse. Stier, on rather 
insufficient grounds, argues against the 
connection of these verses, referring οὖν 
to the whole foregoing subject, the new 
man in Christ. In this latter case, οὖν 
would have more of what has been 
called its reflexive force (‘lectorem re- 
yocat ad id ipsum quod nunc agitur,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717) ; that it is, 
however, here rather collective (‘ad ea 
qu antea revera posita sunt lectorem 
revocat,’ Klotz, 2b.) seems much more 
probable ; comp. Hartung, Partik. οὖν, 
3:5, ViOl. ΠΤ Ρ- 22 ἀγαπητά] 
“beloved;’ not ‘liebe Kinder,’ Riick. 
(compare Chrys.), but ‘geliebte.” The 
reason is given by Gicumen., who, how- 
ever, does not appear to have felt the 
full force of the word ; τοῖς yap τοιούτοις 
(ἀγαπητοῖς) ἐξ ἀνάγκης τινὸς 7 μίμησι». 
The ἀνάγκη consisted in the fact of God 
having loved them; love must be re- 
turned by love; and in love alone can 
man imitate God: see 1 John iy. 10, and 
comp. Charnock, Attrib. p. 618 (Bohn). 
For two practical sermons on this text, 
see Farindon, Sermon txxxvit. (two 
Parts), Vol. 111. p. 494 sq. (ed. Jackson). 


Guar. V.2 EPHESIANS. 


Py 


9. / 9 \ A ’ » f. \ \ € \ 
ἀγαπητά, ὅ καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, KaSw@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 
» / e a \ a 

ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ 
ϑυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. 


2. mas... ἡμῖν] Tisch. ὑμᾶς... ὑμῖν, but his authorities [AB; 8 mss.; San., 
4Eth., Clem. (2), Theophyl., al.] do not appear sufficient to substantiate a reading 
which seems so very probably to have arisen from a conformation of the text to the 


second person. 
Alf., and Wordsw. 


We therefore retain the Rec. with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Meyer, 
In ver. 3 the order of πᾶσα is reversed (with Tisch.) on nearly 


the same anthority, but there Rec. adopts the more easy reading. 


2.xal περιπ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ] ‘and 
walk in love;’ continuation of the fore- 
going precept, καὶ serving to append 
closely a specification of that in which 
the imitation of God must consist. 
kados καὶ 6 Xp. x.7.A.| ‘even as 
Christ also loved,’ —not ‘has loved ;’ the 
pure aoristic sense is more appropriate 
and more in accordance with the historic 
aor. which follows. 
κεν ἑἕαυτ.] ‘and gave up Himself ;’ 
specification of that wherein (‘non tan- 
tum ut Deus sed etiam ut homo, Est’) 
this love was preéminently shown, καὶ 
having a slightly explanatory force; see 
Gal. ii. 20, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 
12. The supplementary idea to παρέδ. 
must surely be eis ϑάνατον (Harl.), as in 
every case where παραδ. is used by St. 
Paul in ref. to Christ, εἰς Sav. or some 
similar idea, seems naturally included in 
the verb: see esp. Rom. iv. 25, where 
παρεδόϑη is followed by ἠγέρϑη ; comp. 
Rom. viii. 32, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. v. 25. 
For a sound and clear sermon on this 
text {Christ’s sacrifice of Himself), see 
Waterl. Serm. xxxt. Vol. v. p. 737 sq. 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) ‘for us,’ —and also, as 
the context indisputably shows, ‘in our 
stead ;’” 
connection, see Usteri, LeArb. 11. 1. 1, p. 
115 sq., and notes on Gal. iii. 13 ; comp. 
ab. ch. i. 4, προσφορὰν καὶ 
ϑυσίαν] ‘an offering and sacrifice ;’ 
not ‘a sacrifice offered up,’ sc. ϑυσίαν 
προσφερομένην, Conyb.,—a mode of 


καὶ παρέδω- 


on the meaning of ὑπὲρ in this 


translation ever precarious and insuffi- 
cient. It may be doubtful whether Svc. 
and προσφ. are intended to specify respec- 
tively bloody and unbloody sacrifices, for 
προσφ. is elsewhere used in ref. to bloody 
(Heb. x. 10), and Suc. to unbloody of- 
ferings (Heb. xi. 4), and further, the 
rough definition that Svoia implies ‘the 
slaying of a victim’ (Eadie) is by no 
means of universal application ; see esp. 
John Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. 1.1, p. 73 sq. 
(A. C. Libr.). Equally doubtful, esp. 
in reference to Christ, is the definition 
that a ϑυσία is ἃ “προσφ. rite consumpta,’ 
Outram, de Sacrif. vi11. 1, p. 182 (ed. 
1677). Still it is probable that a distine- 
tion was here intended by St. Paul, and 
that mpocp. as the more general term, re- 
lates not only to the death, but to the life 
of obedience of our blessed Lord (comp. 
Heb. v. 8), His ϑυσία ζῶσα (Rom. xii. 
1); ϑυσία, as the more special, more par- 
ticularly to His atoning death. On this 
accus., which in its apposition to the 
foregoing is also practically predicative, 
and serves to complete the notion of the 
verb, see Madvig, Synt. § 24. 
Θεῷ is commonly explained cither (a) 
as the ordinary transmissive dative, sc. 
taped. τῷ Θεῷ (Mey.; so appy. J. Johns. 
Vol. 1. p. 161), or (0) as a dat. of limi- 
tation to εἰς ὅσμ. answering to the Heb. 
Bint mins fs (Stier). As, how- 
ever, the meaning of παρέδωκεν (see 
above) and the distance of the dat. (De 
W. compares Rom. xii. 1, but there τῷ 


ae 


118 


Avoid fornication, covet- 
ousness, and all forms of 
impurity, foron such comes 
the wrath of God. Ye 
were once in heathen dark- NG 

ness, but now are light; ayLols, 
reprove the words of darkness, awake and arise. 


“ 


4 


Θεῷ is not joined with the verb) do not 
harmonize with the former, and the 
prominent position of τῷ Θεῷ is difficult 
to be explained on the latter hypothesis, 
it seems more simple to regard τῷ Θεῴ 
ethical dative or dat. commodi 
appended to the two substantives; so 
Beng. and appy., by their studied adher- 
ence to the order of the original, all the 
ancient Vy.; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 23.1, 
Ρ. 186. 
‘for, sc. to become a savor of sweet smell ;’ 


as an 


eis dom. evwdlas| 


— sc. a ϑυσία εὐπρόσδεκτος, Chrys.; see 
ἘΠῚ: ahs EI LEA 1: 95 15. Uli. aig I, i 
5, comp. Gen. viii. 21. The authors of 
the Racov. Catech. (§ v1i1.) have cor- 
rectly explained the constr., but have 
erroneously asserted that these words 
(‘quae de pacificis creberrime ; de expia- 
toriis autem vix uspiam usurpantur,’ — 
but see Deyling, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 315, No. 
65) do not represent Christ’s death as 
an expiutory sacrifice; comp. even Ust. 
Lehrb. 11.1.1, p. 113. To this, without 
needlessly pressing ὕπέρ, we may simply 
say with Waterland, that the contrary 
‘is as plain from the N. T. as words can 
make it,’ and that St. Paul’s perpetual 
teaching is that Christ’s death was ‘a 
true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the 
sins of mankind ;’ see proof texts, Vol. 
Iv. p. 513, and esp. Jackson, Creed, Book 
1x. 55, Vol. 1x. p. 589 sq. (Oxf. 1844). 
The nature of the gen. εὐωδίας is rightly 
explained by Wordsw. as that of the 
characterizing quality ; see notes on Phil. 
iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 2, p. 
211. 

3 πορνεία δέ] ‘But fornication ;’ 
gentle transition to another portion of 
the exhortation, with a resumption of 
the negative and prohibitive form of 
address (ch. iv. 31); the δὲ being mainly 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 8, 4. 


° Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαδαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεο- 

/ ND , 5. eR in \ , 
veEia μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσδω ἐν ὑμῖν, KaS@s πρέπει 
καὶ aloypoTns καὶ μωρολογία ἢ 


μεταβατικόν (see on Gal. i. 11), though 
perhaps not without some slight indica- 
tion of contrast to what has preceded. 
On the Apostle’s constant and emphatic 
condemnation of the deadly sin of πορ- 
νεία, as one of the things which the old 
Pagan world deemed ἀδιάφορα, compare 
Mey. on Acts xv.20. # πλεονεξια) 
‘or covetousness ;’ the # is not explana- 
tory (Heins. Exercit. p. 467), but has its 
full and proper disjunctive force, serving 
to distinguish πλεὺν. from more special 
sins of the flesh ; see notes on ch. iy. 19. 
μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσϑ ὦ] ‘let it not be even 
named, — not, ‘ut facta’ (Beng. 1), a 
meaning which ὀνομαζ. will scarcely 
justify ; but, ‘let it not be even men- 
tioned by name’ (Beng. 2), of yap Adyat 
τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσιν ὅδοί, Chrys.; see 
ver. 12, and comp. Psalm xy. 4. Mey. 
cites Dio Chrys. 360 b, στάσιν δὲ οὐδὲ 
ὀνομάζειν ἄξιον map’ ὑμῖν. καδὼς 
πρέπει ἁγίοις] ‘as becometh saints, 
—sc. to thus avoid all mention by name 
even of these sins, ἱκανῶς τὸ μυσαρὸν 
τῶν εἰρημένων ὑπέδειξε, καὶ αὐτὰς αὐτῶν 
προσηγορίας τῆς μνήμης ἐξορίσαι κελεύσας, 
Theod. 

4. καὶ aioxporns| ‘and filthiness,’ 
not merely in words (/Eth., Theoph., 
CEcum.), which would be αἰσχρολογία 
(Col. iii. 8), but, as the abstract form 
suggests, τὸ αἰσχρόν, whether actively 
exhibited or passively approved, in word, 
gesture, or deed. The context obviously 
limits its reference to ἀκαῦ. and sins of 
the flesh; αἰσχρότης δὲ tis ἐστιν Kas 
ἕκαστον εἶδος ἀκολασίας, Origen (Cram. 
Caten.). Lachm. reads ἤ aisxp. ἤ 
μωρολ. with ADIEIFG; mss.; Clarom., 
Vulg., Sahid.; Bas., al. (Meyer), but in 
opp. to good external authority [BD?®E? 
KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Ath.-Platt, 


παν. V. 5. 


EPHESIANS. 


119 


> ἢ \ 5) Spas: κ : 5 a 
εὐτραπελία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία. ἢ τοῦτο 


al.; Clem., Chrysost., al.], and to the 
internal probability of a conformation to 
the following 7. μωρολογία) 
‘foolish talking,’ stultiloquium, Clarom., 


Vulg., |2ouguas ΠᾺΡ [sermones 


stultitie] Syriac; an ἅπαξ Aeyou. in 
the N. T. of which the exact meaning 
must be defined by the context. Of the 
two definitions of Origen, the first, 7 
ἀσκουμένη ὑπὸ τῶν μωρολόγων Kal γελω- 
τοποίων, is too lax ; the second, τὸ μωρὸν 
εἶναι ἐν τοῖς δογματι(ζομένοις, too re- 
strictive. The terms with which it 
stands in connection seem certainly to 
preclude any reference to positive pro- 
fanity (compare Caly.), still Trench is 
probably right in here superadding to 
the ordinary meaning of idle, aimless, 
and foolish talk, a ref. to that sin and 
vanity of spirit which the talk of fools is 
certain to bewray ; see Synon. § XXXIV., 
and Wordsw. in loc, 
<jesting,’ 


εὐτραπελία) 

second ἅπαξ 
λεγόμ. : ἔνϑα γέλως ἄκαιρος ἐκεῖ ἡ εὐτρα- 
πελία, Chrysost. The word, as its deri- 
vation suggests, properly means versatil- 
ity, Whether in motion, manners, or talk 
(Dissen, Pind. Pyth. 1. 93); from which 
a more unfavorable signification, ‘ pol- 
ished jesting,’ (εὐτράπελος: ὃ δυνάμενος 
σκῶψαι ἐμμελῶς, Aristot. Moral. 1. 81), 
‘use of witty equivyoque’ (ingenio niti- 
tur,’ Beng.), is easily and naturally 
derived; see Trench, Synon. xxxIv., 
and the excellent sermon by Barrow on 
this text, Serm. xiv. Vol. 1. p. 383 sq. 
The disjunctive (surely not ‘conjune- 
tive, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xx111.) ἢ marks 
it-as a different vice to μωρολ., and thus 
appy. as not only a sin of the tongue 
(Trench), but as including the eyil ‘ur- 
banitas’ (in manners or words) of the 
witty, godless man of the world. The 
practical application may be found in 
Taylor, Serm. xx111. (Gold. Grove), 


‘wittiness;’ ἃ 


and esp. in the latter part of Chrysost. 
Hom. xvit. τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα) 
‘things which are not convenient ;’ in 
apposition to the last two words, to 
which both edx., as denoting oral expres- 
sion yet implying inward feeling, forms a 
clear contrast. It is instructive to com- 
pare Rom. i. 28, τὰ μὴ καϑήκοντα, there 
the subjective denial seems appropriately 
introduced (‘facere que (si qui) essent 
indecora,’ Winer, Gr. § 59. 4, p. 564, ed. 
5); here is a plain objective fact that 
Such indeed 
(ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν) is the reading of AB; 3 
mss.; Clem., al. (Lachm.), — authority, 
however, too weak to justify a change in 
the present text. On the use of ov and 
μὴ with participp., see Gayler, Partic 
Neg. p. 287, but observe the caution 
suggested in notes on 1 Thess. ii. 15, 
iii. 1. εὐχαριστία) ‘gwing of 
the meaning of this word, 
adopted by Hammond, several of the 
older, and some later expositors, ‘ edify- 
ing discourse,’ ‘devoutness,’ cannot be 
justified by St. Paul’s use either of the 
verb or the subst. ; comp. Petay. Dissert. 
Eccl. 11. 10. 4, 5, and on the true force 
of the ethical connection, see Harl. Lihik, 
ὁ 32.a. On the duty generally, so fre- 
quently inculcated by St. Paul, see notes 
and reff. on Phil. iv. 6, and on Col. iii. 
15. The verb here omitted, ‘per brachy- 
logiam’ (Jelf, Gr. § 895), is differently 
supplied ; perhaps γινέσϑω ἐν ὑμῖν is the 
supplement most natural, ἀνήκει (Beng.) 
that least so. 


such things — οὐκ ἀνῆκεν. 


thanks ;’ 


5. τοῦτο ἴστε yiveck.| 


yap 
‘For this ye know, being aware, or, as ye 
are aware ;’ confirmation of the preced- 
ing prohibitions, by an appeal to their 
own knowledge of the judgment against 
those who practise them. It is scarcely 
critically exact to connect this with the 
Hebraistic (but compare also Jelf, Gr. § 
705. 3) mode of expression, γινώσκων 


? 


190 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V.5. 


\ be a DY 
γὰρ ἴστε γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ akaSapTos ἢ πλεονέκτης, 


cid > » / 5 ” f 5» a ἣν. lol 
ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ EXEL κληρονομίαν ἐν TH βασιλείᾳ τοῦ 


γνώσῃ, Gen, xv. 18, ‘thou shalt know 
full well,’ ete. (Stier), as ἴστε and 
γινώσκ. are not portions of the same 
verb. The part. must be joined more 
immediately with ὅτι, and seems used 
with a slightly causal force which serves 
to elucidate and justify the appeal; see 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 8, p. 318. Whether 
tote be taken as imperative or indicative 
must be left to individual judgment. 
The former interpr. is adopted by Cla- 
rom., Vulg., Arm. (comp.,— but with 
different reading, Syr., Auth.), and by 
some Ff., 6. g. appy. Clem. Alex. (Pe- 
dag. 111. 4), but seems scarcely so im- 
pressive as the latter (Copt.), and some- 
what tends to diminish the force of the 
now isolated and emphatic imperative in 
ver. 6; comp. Alf. zz loc. The reading 
ἐστε γιν. (fec.) is supported by Π 510 
KL; mss.; Syr. (both), al.; Theod., 
Dam., but is distinctly inferior to ἔστε 
in external authority [ABDIFG; 30 
mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., al.; Clem., 
al.], and is rejected by nearly all recent 
editors. πᾶς ---οὐ κ] On this Hebra- 
istic mode of expression, see notes on 
ch. iv. 29. ὅς ἐστιν refers im- 
mediately to πλεονέκτης, not to the three 
preceding substantives; comp. Col. iii. 
5, Thy πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστιν εἰδωλολατ- 
pela. Covetousness is truly a definite 
form of idolatry, it is the worship of 
Mammon (Matth. vi. 24) instead of 
God; comp. Theodoret. To this, there- 
fore, rather than to the other sins, which 
are veritable, but more subtle forms of 
the same sin, the Apostle gives the above 
specific designation. The passages ad- 
duced by Wetst. and Schoettg. illustrate 
the form of expression, but nothing 
more. The reading ὅ adopted by 
Lachm., Alf, is only found in B.; 3. 
67**, al.; Cyr., Jerome, — and has no 
claim to be received in the text on such 


weak external authority. οὐκ 
ἔχει κληρον.] ‘hath no inheritance ;’ 
a weighty present, involving an indirect 
reference to the eternal and enduring 
principles by which God governs the 
world, — not so much, ‘has no inheri- 
tance, and shall have none’ (Eadie), as 
‘has, etc., and can have none ;” compare 
ver. 6, and Col. iii. 6, δι᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται ἣ ὀργὴ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 2, p. 
237. τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ] 
‘of Christ and God,’ --- ποῦ ‘of God,’ 
Auth. This is the first decided instance 
(the reading being doubtful in Acts xx. 
28) adduced by Granville Sharp, to 
prove that the same Person in Scripture 
is called Christ and God, see Middleton, 
Greek Art. p. 862 sq. (ed. Rose), and 
ch. 111. 4. 2, p. 57 sq. When, however, 
we maturely weigh the context, in which 
no dogmatic assertions relative to Christ 
find a place (as in Tit. ii. 13, 14), when 
we recall the frequent use of Θεὸς with- 
out an article, even where it might have 
been expected (compare Winer, Gr. § 
19. 1, p. 110),—and lastly, when we 
observe that the presence of the art. τοῦ 
Θεοῦ would really have even suggested a 
thought of subordination (as if it were 
necessary to specify that the kindom of 
Christ was also the kingdom of God, — 
the inadvertence of the Auth.), we seem 
forced to the conviction that Sharp’s 
rule does not apply here. Christ and 
God are united together in the closest 
way, and presented under a single con- 
ception (compare Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 
116), — an indirect evidence of Christ’s 
divinity of no slight value,—still the 
identity of the two substantives (‘of 
Him who is Christ and God,’ Wordsw.) 
cannot be safely or certainly maintained 
from this passage. On the meaning of 
the term βασιλεία Θεοῦ, see notes and 
reff. on Gal. vy. 21. 


Cap. V. 6, 7. 


EPHESIANS. 121 


-~_ 


fo) \ a \ a a 
Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ. © μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις: διὰ 


n Ny 05d Om) \ a Pup San \ e n 5) / 
ταυτὰ yap EPNETAL 1) opy” TOU Θεοῦ €77L TOUS VLOUS τῆς ἀπειδε είας. 


7 VES ’ a 
μὴ οὖν γίνεσσε συνμέτοχοι αὐτῶν. 


6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς κ. τ. λ.} ‘Let no one 
deceive you with vain words, sophistries ;’ 
emphatic warning (without any particle) 
against all who sought to deceive them 
as to the real nature of the sins con- 
demned. It does not seem necessary to 
limit the regular meaning of κενός 
(‘empty,’ οὐδαμῶς ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων δεικνύ- 
μενοι, Chrys., — hence ‘a veritate alieni,’ 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 299), and to re- 
fer the κενοὶ λόγοι specially to heathen 
philosophers (Grot.), to Judaizers 
(Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 184, note, 
Bohn), or to Christian Antinomians 
(Olsh.). The Apostle generally con- 
demns all apologists for vice, whoever 
they might be. ‘These would of course 
be most commonly found among the 
heathens, and to them the passage most 
naturally points. The palliation or tacit 
toleration of vice, especially sensuality, 
was one of the most fearful and repul- 
sive features of heathenism; see esp. 
Tholuck, Influence of Heathenism, Part 
ἐν: 2. διὰ ταῦτα γάρ] ‘for on 
account of these sins :’ confirmation of the 
preceding warning; it is on account of 
these things (obs. the emphasis on διὰ 
ταῦταὶ, that God’s wrath and vengeance 
is directed against the perpetrators. The 
reference of ταῦτα is clearly to the sins 
above mentioned (τούτων ἕκαστον ἔδρων, 
Theodoret) ; comp. Col. iii. 6, & 
in reference to a foregoing list of vices, 
and Gal. ν. 21, ἅ προλέγω ὑμῖν. The 
pronoun has been referred to the ἀπάτη 
of the κενοὶ λόγοι (Theoph. 2), or to the 
ἀπάτη and the foregoing vices. The 
first interpr. is not grammatically unten- 
able, as the plural ταῦτα may be idiomat- 
ically used to denote a single object, etc., 
in its different manifestations (see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v1. 8. d, p. 282, Winer, Gr. 


yo ef. 


a@,— 


§ 23. 5, p. 146), but, equally with the 
second, is open to the contextual objec- 
tion, that ver. 7 seems a general warning 
against Gentile sins, to which conse- 
quently the present verse will be more 
naturally referred. ἢ ὀργὴ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ] ‘the wrath of God ;’ certainly not 
to be restricted to this life, ‘ ordinaria 
Dei judicia,’ Calv., but as the solemn 
present (see last verse) indicates, to be ex- 
tended also, and perhaps more especially, 
to the judgments ἐν τῇ Bao. τοῦ Xp. καὶ 
Θεοῦ. υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειδ.] ‘Sons 
of disobedience ;’ scil., in effect, τοὺς σφό- 
dpa ἀπειϑεῖς, Chrys., ἔχοντες τὸν τῆς μη- 
τρὸς χαρακτῆρα, Origen; see esp. notes 
on ch. ii. 2, and Suicer, Thes. Vol. 11. p. 
1357. The aed. here is disobedience 
to the principles and practice of the 
Gospel ; see more on ch. ii. 2. 

7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσδ εἶ ‘Do not then 
become ;’ οὖν having its full collective 
force (see on ver. 1), and referring to 
the previous statement that the wrath of 
God certainly does come on all such. 
The yiveode (Clarom., ‘nolite fier,’ 
Vulg., ‘nolite effici,’ — perhaps some- 
what too strongly) is not to be explained 
away: the Apostle does not warn them 
only against being (Alf.), but against be- 
coming (‘ni vairpaip, Goth.) partakers 
with them, against allowing themselves 
to /apse into any of their prevailing sins 
and depravities. 
αὐτῶν] ‘partakers with them ;’ not in 
their punishment (Holzh.), nor their 
punishment and sins (Stier), but, as the 
context, esp. ver. 11, obviously suggests, 
their sins; ‘nolite similia facere,’ Estius. 
On συνμέτοχος, see notes ch. iii. 6, and 
on the orthography (which has here 
the authority of AB!D!FG) comp. Tisch. 
Prolegom. p. XLVI. 

16 


συνμέτοχοι 
) 


122 


EPHESIANS. 


Crap. V. 8, 9. 


8 4 , r a \ an > ! e , \ 
ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ' ws τέκνα φωτὸς περ- 


LITATELTE, 


8. ἦτε γάρ] ‘For ye WERE;’ em- 
phatic, the time is now past, Rom. vi. 17. 
It is this very difference between the past 
and present state that confirms and proves 
(yap) the propriety of the preceding 
warning ; ‘as that state is past, do not 
recur to it, —do not lapse again into a 
participation in vices which you have 
now turned away from ;’ comp. note on 
γίνεσϑε (ver. 7), of which the present 
verse seems tacitly confirmatory. 

The assertion of Riick. that in this and 
several other passages in St. Paul’s Epp. 
(6. g. Rom. v. 18, vi. 17, 1 Cor. iii. 12, 21, 
Gal. ii. 6, 15, vi. 8) μὲν ought to be in- 
serted is sufficiently refuted by Harless. 
The rule is simple, — if the first clause 
is intended to stand in connection with 
and prepare the reader for the opposition 
in the second, μὲν is inserted; if not, 
not: see the excellent remarks of Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356 sq., Fritz. Rom. x. 
19, Vol. 11. p. 423, and notes on Gal. ii. 
15: σκότοϑ»]) ‘darkness ;’ not 
merely living or abiding in it (comp. 
Rom. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 4), but them- 
selves actual and veritable darkness ; for 
examples of this vigorous and appropri- 
ate use of the abstract term, see Jelf, Gr. 
§ 353. 1: φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘light 
in the Lord ;’ not διὰ τῆς ϑείας χάριτος, 
Theoph., but ‘in fellowship with the 
Lord ;’ extra Christum Satan omnia 
occupat,’ Caly. The continued and cor- 
responding use of the abstr. for concr. 
(see above) suitably prepares for the en- 
ergetic exhortation (without οὖν) which 
follows. They were φῶς, not only in 
themselves (πεφωτισμένοι), but to others 
(comp. Matth. vy. 14), and were to pur- 
sue their moral walk in accordance with 
such a state of privilege. On the use of 
the terms φῶς and σκότος, see Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1, 3, p. 229. 
φωτὺς περιπ.] ‘walk as children of 


ε Ψ 
WS τεκνα 


Spee N \ a \ > , > , \ 
ὁ yap καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ayaswouvyn καὶ 


liyht,’ as those who stand in nearest and 
truest connection with it; see notes on 
ch. ii. 3. The absence of the article can 
hardly be pressed (Alf.), as it appears 
due only to that common principle of 
correlation, by which, if the governing 
noun is without the article, the governed 
will be equally so; see Middleton, Art. 
111. 3, 7, p.49 (ed Rose). On the mean- 
ing of περιπατεῖν, which, however, must 
not always be too strongly pressed, see 
notes on Phil. iii. 18, and on 1 Thess. iv. 
12. 

9. ὃ γὰρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the fruit of the 
light ;’ parenthetic confirmation of the 
foregoing command, and incitement to 
follow it. Tap is thus not simply ex- 
planatory (ὥσπερ ἐφερμηνεύει τί ἐστι τὸ 
τέκνα τοῦ φωτός, Theoph.), but, as the 
order seems to suggest, confirms the pro- 
priety of using the term περιπατεῖτε, and 
also supplies its fuller explanation ; ‘ As 
children of the light walk ye, for the 
fruit of light is shown in a moral walk, 
in practical instances of ἀγαϑωσύνη.᾽ 
The modal participle δοκιμάζοντες (see 
below) is thus closely joined with περι- 
πατεῖτε, and ver. 9, though not fully so 
in form, is clearly parenthetical in sense : 
contra Stier, who, however, fails properly 
and grammatically to explain the use of 
the participle. The reading πνεύμα- 
τος [Rec. with D°E*KL; great majority 
of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys., Theod]. 
seems clearly a gloss from Gal. v. 25, 
and is rightly rejected by nearly all re- 
cent editors. ἐν] ‘consistit in,’ 
Beng., or, more exactly, ‘ continetur, 
ponitur in:’ the assertion that ἐν is here 
the ‘Beth essentix’ (compare Gesen. ὃ 
151. 8. a) is distinctly untenable; see 
Winer, Gr. § 47. 3. obs. p. 420. 
πάσῃ ἀγαδωσύν ῃ] ‘all goodness,’ 1.6. 
all forms and instances of it ; see notes 
ch. i. 8. On the meaning of ayas. see 


Cuap. V. 10, 11, 12. 


EPHESIANS. 


123 


, ἊΝ > if A 
δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληδείᾳ, ™ δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ 


Κυρίῳ: 


ll \ Ss lal ἴω 7 lal lal 
καὶ μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις τοῦ 


σκότους, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε. " τὰ γὰρ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ 


notes on Gal. ν. 32. The special appo- 
sitions which Chrys. finds in these three 
nouns, πρὸς τοὺς ὀργιζομένους, πρὸς τοὺς 
πλεονεκτοῦντας, πρὸς τὴν ψευδῆ ἡδονήν, 
are too limited. As Meyer correctly 
observes, the whole of Christian moral- 
ity is presented under its three great 
aspects, the good, the right, the true ; 
ἀνίστοιχα are κακία, ἀδικία, ψεῦδος ; Com- 
pare Harl. zz oc., and for a sermon on 
this text, see Tillotson, Serm. CXLVIII. 
Vol. τι. p. 311 (Lond. 1717). 

10. δοκιμάζοντ ε5] ‘proving,’ ‘test- 
ing ;’ predication of manner appended 
to περιπατεῖτε, defining its character and 
distinctive features. The verb δοκιμάζειν 
is not ‘to have a just conception of,’ 
Peile, nor ‘examinando cognitum ha- 
bere,’ Borger, ad Rom. p. 12 (cited by 
Fritz.), but, in its simple and primary 
sense, ‘to prove, to try,’ the word mark- 
ing the activity and experimental energy 
that should characterize the Christian 
life; see Rom. xii. 2, and Fritz. in loc., 
and notes on Phil. i. 10, where the mean- 
ings of this word are briefly discussed. 
The sense then is well expressed by 
Eadie ; ‘the one point of the Christian’s 
ethical investigation is, Is it well pleas- 
ing to the Lord?’ ἄρα ἀδοκίμου καὶ παιδι- 
κῆς διανοίας Ta ἀλλά, CEcum. 

ll. μὴ συνκοινωνεῖτε) ‘have no 


fellowship with,’ Auth.—a good and accu- 
rate t lation ; ; 
rate translation ; comp wee coo 


[commercium habentes] ‘ gadailans,’ 
Goth. The version of Eadie and De 
W.., ‘take no part in,’ is questionable, 
if not erroneous, as this would imply a 
genitive; comp. Rom. xi. 17, 1 Cor. ix. 
23, Phil. i. 7. Though the sense is 
nearly the same, there is still no reason, 
either here, Phil. iv. 4, or Rev. xviii. 4, 
for departing from the exact translation. 


The form συνκοιν. is found AB!D!IFGL, 
and on such evidence is appy. rightly 
adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7); see Prolegom. 
p. XLVII. τοῖς ἔργοις Tots 
ἀκάρπ.] ‘the unfruitful works ;’? comp. 
Gal. v. 19, 22, where there is a similar 
opposition between καρπὸς and ἔργα. 
The comment of Jerome (cited by Har- 
less) is very good, ‘vitia in semet ipsa 
finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes 
pullulant et redundant ;’ see 
Gal. v. 22. μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ can- 
not be correctly considered as a single 
formula, ‘yea, much more,’ Eadie: μᾶλ- 
λον δὲ is corrective (see notes on Gal. iv. 
9), while καὶ is closely connected with 
the verb, preserving its full ascensive 
force, ‘not only μὴ cvyx., but rather even 
ἐλέγχετε;᾽ ‘non satis abstinere est,’ 
Bengel ; comp. Fritz. Rom. viii. 34, Vol. 
II. p. 216. ἐλέγχετ Ee] ‘reprove 
them,’ ‘redarguite,’ Clarom., Vulg.,— 
not by the passive, virtual reproof of 
your holy lives and conversation (Peile), 
but, as St. Paul’s use of the word (see 
esp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24,2 Tim. iv. 2, Tit. i. 
9, 13, ii. 15), and still more the context, 
suggest, — by active and oral reproba- 
tion. The antithesis is thus most fully 
marked; ‘do not connive at them or 
pass them over unnoticed, but take 
aggressive measures against them; try 
and raise the Gentiles to your own 
Christian standard ;’ see Olsh. in loc. 

12. τὰ yap κ. τ. λ.] ‘For the things, 
etc.;’ confirmatory reason for the com- 
mand in the preceding clause. The 
connection of this verse with the preced- 
ing has been differently explained. If 
the correct meaning of ἐλέγχ. (see 
above) be retained, there seems but little 
difficulty ; yap then gives the reason for 
the καὶ ἐλέγχετε; ‘reproof is indeed 
necessary, for some of their sins, their 


frugibus 
notes on 


124 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 13. 


2. A > r 9 \ ΄ 19. Sea δὲ Ve ἐν, 2), ΄ ey 
αὐτῶν αισχρον εστιν Kab λέγειν" τὰ O€ TTAVTA ε εγχόμενα UTrO 


secret vices for instance, are such that it 
is a shame even to speak of them, much 
less connive at them or join in them.’ 
Harl. refers yap more to μὴ συγκ.; ‘do 
not commit these sins, for they are too 
bad even to mention.” This, however, 
assumes a perfect identity between τὰ 
ἔργ. Tod ok. and τὰ κρυφῆ γιν., which 
(see below) is highly doubtful ; and also 
gives to the negative part of the com- 
mand (which, as the corrective μᾶλλον δὲ 
suggests, is obscured by the positive) an 
undue and untenable prominence. 

τὰ κρυφῆ γιν.] ‘the things which are 
done in secret by them, sc. by the υἱοῖς τῆς 
ἀπειϑείας. There is not enough in the 
context to substantiate a reference to the 
mysteries and orgies of heathenism (Els- 
ner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 223). The use of 
κρυφῇ (which obviously has here a sim- 
ple, and not an ethical meaning like 
σκότος) and its emphatic position seem 
alike to show that τὰ κρυφῆ yw. are sins, 
not simply identical with τὰ ἔργα τ. σκό- 
τους, ver. 11 (Harl.), but a specific class 
of the genus. These ‘deeds done in 
secret, then, were all those ‘peccata 
occulta’ which presented the worst fea- 
tures of the genus, and which, from their 
nature and infamy, shunned the light of 
day and of judgment. καὶ 
λέγειν] ‘even to speak of,’ ‘only to men- 
This is an instance of what may 
be termed the descensive force of καί ; see 
exx. in Hartung, Partik. καί, 2.9, Vol. 
1. p. 136; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. 
Ῥ. 364, and notes on Gal. iii. 4. 


tion.’ 


Elsner 
compares, not inappropriately, Tsoer. 
Demon. p. 6, ἃ ποιεῖν αἰσχρόν, ταῦτα 
νόμιζε μηδὲ λέγειν εἶναι κάλον. 

13. τὰ δὲ πάντα] ‘ But all of them,’ 


‘they all’ ots 


nia] Syr.-Phil.; continuation of the rea- 
son for the command μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ 
éAéyx-., — with antithetical reference to 


σι [illa om- 


the κρυφῆ γινόμενα, δὲ retaining its 
proper force in the opposition it suggests 
to any inference that might have been 
deduced from ver. 12; ‘it is true these 
deeds are done in secret, but all of 
them, ete. ;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
363, 365. Τὰ πάντα is not ‘all things,’ 
taken generally (Riick., Alf.), but, as 
the antithesis between κρυφῆ and φανερ. 
(compare Mark iy. 22) clearly suggests, 
‘all the κρυφῆ γινόμ.,᾽ “haud dubie quin 
ea quie occulte fiunt,’ Hieron.; so rightly 
De W. and Meyer in loc. 


χόμενα) 
-πϑῶξος ἐξ [dum redarguuntur] 


Syr.-Phil.; predication of manner or 
perhaps rather of time appended to τὰ 
The absence of the art. before 
ἐλεγχ. distinctly precludes the transla- 
tion ‘que arguuntur’ (Clarom., Vulg., 
Auth., — comp. Copt.), and shows that 
the participle is not an epithet but a 
secondary predicate ; see Scholef. Hints, 
p- 108. ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανε- 
ροῦται] ‘are made manifest by light.’ It 
is somewhat difficult to decide whether 
these words are to be connected with the 
part. (Svr., Copt.), or with the finite 
verb (Aith., Syr.-Phil., — appy.); a con- 
nection with both (Scholef, comp. Stier) 
is an evasion, but not an explanation, 
of the difficulties. The following posi- 
tions will perhaps serve to narrow the 
discussion. (a) ’EAeyxéueva, both in 
tense as well as meaning (contr. Hamm., 
Peile), must stand in closest reference to 
ἐλέγχετε; it may still be said, however, 
that the secondary meaning of the word 
(compare Clem. Al. Protrept. 11. p. 19, 
ἐλέγχει τὸν Ἴακχον τὸ φῶς) may have 
suggested the metaphorical language 
which follows. (b) Φῶς (φάος, φανερός) 
and gavepéw are closely allied terms ; 
the one so obviously explains. elucidates, 
and implies the other, that the connec- 


ἐλεγ- 


‘when they are reproved’ 


J 
TAVTQ. 


@uxr. Υ. 14. 


EPHESIANS. 


125 


A Ν la) A \ \ 7, -“ ’ 

τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται: πᾶν yap τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστιν' 

14 ς / ΕΣ « 7 ἐν >’ / 4 an rn \ 
διὸ λέγει "Hyeipe ὁ καϑεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ 


ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. 


tion of the two in the same clause seems 
in a high degree natural and probable. 
(c) Φῶς must have the same meaning in 
both clauses ; if simply metaphorical in 
the latter clause, then also simply meta- 
phorical (not ethical, as in τέκνα φωτός) 
in the former. (d) The voice of φανε- 
péw must be the same in both clauses, 
and is certainly passive ; the verb occurs 
nearly fifty times in the N. T., and never 
in a middle sense ; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 
6, p. 231. Applying these premises, 
it seems clear that if we adopt the first- 
mentioned connection, ἐλεγχ. ὑπὸ φωτ. 
(Chrys , al.), conditions (a) and (c) can- 
not be fully satisfied; for either éAeyx. 
must be taken as nearly synonymous 
with φανερ. (De W.), or φῶς must have 
an ethical reference (‘lux yerbi,’ Croc.) 
in the former clause, which it can 
scarcely bear in the latter; and further, 
ἐλεγχόμ. will thus have a specification 
attached to it, which is not in harmony 
with ver. 12, where the act alone is 
enjoined without any special concomitant 
mention of the agent. It would thus 
seem to be almost certain that ὑπὸ φωτός 
must be joined with φανεροῦται, which it 
somewhat emphatically precedes. We 
translate then, in accordance with (a), 
(5), (6), (d), as follows: ‘but all things 
(though so κρυφῆ yw.) when reproved are 
made manifest by the light (thus shed 
upon them), for everything that is made 
manifest is light (becomes daylight, is of 
the nature of light); compare Scholef. 
l. c., and Wordsw. in loc. In a word, 
the reasoning depends on the logical 
proposition which Meyer has adduced, — 
“quod est in effectu (φῶς ἐστί), id debet 
esse in causa (ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός). 

That this φανέρωσις, however, does not 
necessarily imply or involve a ‘ mutatio 
in melius’ (Jerome, comp. Wordsw.), 


seems clear from (6). All that is as- 
serted is, that ‘whatever is illumined is 
light ;’ whether that tend to condemna- 
tion or the contrary, depends upon the 
nature of the case, and the inward opera- 
tion of the outwardly illuminating influ- 
ence ; see Alf. in loc. 

14. διό] ‘On which account ;’ since 
this ἔλεγξις is so urgent and necessary a 
duty, and its nature such as described. 
On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv. 
51 λέγει] ‘He saith;’ scil. 6 
Θεός, according to the usual form of St. 
Paul’s quotations ; see notes on ch. iv. 
8, and on Gal. iii.16. The words here 
quoted are not found exactly in the 
same form in the O. T., but certainly 
occur in substance in Isaiah Ix. 1 sq. 
Meyer represents it as a quotation from 
an apocryphal writing which the Apostle 
introduces by a lapse of memory; De 
W., as an application from a passage in 
the O. T., which he had so constantly 
used as at last to mistake for the original 
text. Alii alia. It seems much more 
reverent, as well as much more satisfac- 
tory, to say that St. Paul, speaking 
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
is expressing, in a condensed and sum- 
mary form, the spiritual meaning of the 
passage. The prophet’s immediate words 
supply, in substance, the first part of the 
quotation, FNS Sa 7D “HAN MExp; the 
concluding part is the spiritual applica- 
tion of the remainder of the verse, viz. 
mat 779 mine thas, and of the gen- 
eral tenor of the prophecy; see esp. ver. 
19, and comp. Surenhus, BiBA. Καταλλ. 
p- 588. Any attempt to explain λέγει 
impersonally (‘one may say,’ Bornem. 
Schol. in Luc. p. xuvi11.) is not only 
opposed to St. Paul’s constant use of 
λέγει, but is grammatically unsupported : 
φησὶ (compare Lat. ‘inquit’) is so used 


120 


Walk strictly: avoid ex- 
cess, but be filled with the 


EPHESIANS. 


Car. V. 15: 


© Βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, μὴ 


Spirit; sing psalms outwardly with your lips, and make melody with thankfulness in your hearts within. 


especially in later writers, but no in- 
stances have been adduced of a similar 
use of λέγει : comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 
X11. 4, p. 419. ἔγειρε] ‘Awake,’ 
‘Up!’ This expression is now generally 
correctly explained : it is not an instance 
of an ‘act. pro medio’ (Porson, Eurip. 
Orest. 288), or of an ellipsis of σεαυτόν, 
but simply a ‘formula excitandi ;’ con- 
sult the excellent note of Fritz. Mark ii. 
9, p. 55. The reading of the Rec. ἔγει- 
pat, found only in some cursive mss., is 
undoubtedly a correction, and is rejected 
by all the best editors. ἀν ἀστα) 
This shortened form occurs 
Acts xii. 7, and may be compared with 
κατάβα (Lec.), Mark xv. 30, ἀνάβα, Rev. 
ive seseesWiner, .GneSl4s Ips ϑὲ 
‘and Christ shall 
shine upon thee,’ — obviously ποῦν ἴῃ the 
derivative sense, ‘ Christus tibi propitius 
erit’ (Bretsch.), but simply, ‘illucescet 
tanquam sol’ (Beng.), ‘per gratiam te 
illuminabit’ (Est.): ὅταν οὖν ἐγερϑῆ τις 


‘arise.’ 


καὶ ἐπιφαύσ ει 


On 


> = c ἢ 4 >, , ter 
ἀπὸ TNS ALAPT LAS, TOTE ἐπιφαύσει QuT@ 


On 


Χριστός, τουτέστιν, ἐπιλάμψει ὥσπερ καὶ 
ἥλιος τοῖς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερϑεῖσιν, Theoph. 

15. βλέπετε οὖν] ‘Take heed then;’ 
resumption of the preceding exhortations 
(ver. 8) after the digression caused by 
the latter part of ver. 11. It is quite 
unnecessary to attempt to connect closely 
this with the preceding verse (Harless, 
Eadie) ; this resumptive use of ody being 
by no means of rare occurrence (see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 718, notes on 
Gal. iii. 5), and indeed involved in the 
nature of the particle, which nearly al- 
ways implies retrospective reference rather 
than direct inference ; see Donalds. Gr. 
§ 548. 31, p. 571. It is scarcely neces- 
sary to add that βλέπετε has no reference 
whatever to the φῶς previously alluded 
to (comp. Est.), but simply implies 
‘take heed ;’ see 1 Cor. xvi. 10, Col. 


iv. 17, and notes in oc. πῶς ἀκ- 


ριβῶς περιπατεῖτε ‘how ye walk 
exactly, or, with strictness,’ scil. ‘quomodo 
illud efficiatis ut provide vivatis? (πῶς τὸ 
ἀκριβῶς ἐργάζεσϑε), Fritz. Fritz. Opuse. 
p- 208, 209, note, — where this passage 
is carefully investigated ; see also Winer, 
Gr. § 41. 4. c. obs. p. 268, who has long 
since given up the assumption that the 
text is an abbreviated expression for 
βλέπετε οὖν πῶς περιπατεῖτε, δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς 
ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν, though still referred 
to by Meyer (ed. 2, 1853), as retaining 
it. Thus then the indic. is not used for 
the subj. (Grot.), which (if an admissible 
structure) would be ‘ quomodo provide 
vivere possitis,’ nor for the future, which 
would be ‘quomodo provide vitam sitis 
acturi,’ but simply calls attention to that 
in which τὸ ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν finds its 
present manifestation, and which is spe- 
cified more precisely in the clause which 
follows. As περιπ. appy. here implies 
little more than (jy (see Fritz. Rom. xiii. 
13, Vol. 111. p. 141, comp. notes on ver. 
8), there is no necessity to depart from 
the literal meaning of ἀκριβῶς, --- not 
‘eaute,’ Vulg., Syr., still less, ‘ without 
stumbling,’ Conyb., but ‘ eaactly,’ ‘ accu- 
rate,’ Beza, ‘tanquam ad regulam et 
amussim,’ Fritz. Opuse. 1. c.; see Nean- 
der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 486 (Bohn). 

μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι κ. τ. λ.] ‘to wit, not as 
” more exact specifi- 
cation of the terms of the preceding 
clause. It is thus not necessary to sup- 
ply either περιπατοῦντες to this clause 
(Harl.), or περιπατῆτε to its second mem- 
ber (as, in effect, Fritz., ‘sed ut homines 
sapientes [vitam instituatis ’], /oc. cit., p. 
209): the clause is simply dependent on 
περιπατεῖτε, explaining first on the neg- 
ative, and then on the affirmative side 
the foregoing adverbs; both the strict- 
ness of their walk and the way in which 
that strictness was to be shown were to 
reflect the spirit of wise men and not of 


unwise but as wise; 


Cuap. V. 16, 17. 


ὡς ἄσοφοι adr ὡς σοφοί, 
αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν. 


fools: comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 63, 
where similar positions of the neg. 
clause are incidentally cited. 

16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοι και- 
ρόν] ‘buying up for yourselves (making 
your own) the opportunity, the fitting sea- 
son;’ part. of manner exemplifying the 
wise spirit of action specified in the fore- 
going member. This expression occurs 
twice in the N. T.; here with, and in 
Col. iv. 5, without an appended causal 
sentence ; compare also Dan. ii. 8, καιρὸν 


τὸν 


ἐξαγοράζετε (appy. ‘hance opportunitatem 
capiatis,’ see Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 780, 
not ‘dilationem quzritis,’ Schleusn.). 
The numerous, and, in most cases, arti- 
ficial explanations of this passage arise 
from the attempts to specify (a) those 
from whom (‘mali homines,’ Beng., 
‘Diabolus,’ Calv., ete.) the καιρὸς is to 
be purchased, or (Ὁ) the price (all worldly 
things, τὰ πάντα, Chrys., Theophyl., 
Schrader) paid for it; both of which are 
left wholly undefined. The force of ex 
does not appear intensive (Mey., comp. 
Plutarch, Crass. § 2), or simply latent (a 
Lap.), but directs the thoughts to the un- 
defined time or circumstances out of 
which, in each particular case, the καιρὸς 
was to be bought ; comp. Gal. iii. 13, iv. 
5, where however the meaning is more 
special, and the reference of the preposi- 
tion better defined by the context. The 
expression then seems simply to denote 
that we are to make a wise use of cir- 
cumstances for our own good or that of 
others, and, as it were, like prudent mer- 
chants (comp. Beza, Corn. a Lap.) to 
‘by up the fitting season’ for so doing ; 
‘diligenter observare tempus, ut id tuum 
facias, eique ut dominus imperes,’ Tittm. 
Synon. p. 42; so Sever. (ap. Cram. 
Caten.), and in effect Origen (ib.), 
though he has too much mixed up the 
ideas of a right purchase of the time and 


16 


EPHESIANS. 127 


od 


3 , \ , cA 
ἐξαγοραζόμενοιν τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι 


" διὰ τοῦτο μὴ γίνεσϑε ἄφρονες, ἀλλὰ 


aright expenditure of it. For sermons 
on this text see August. Serm. CLXVIII. 
Vol. v. p. 909 sq. (ed Migne). 
τὸν καιρόν) ‘the opportunity;’ not 
‘hoc tempus, scil. tempus breve quod 
restat huic zvo,’ Bretsch. (Sever. 6 και- 
pos ὁ παρών, comp. Stier), but, as rightly 
explained by Cornel. a Lap., ‘ occasio- 
nem et opportunitatem 501]. mercandi.’ 
On the use of καιρὸς (‘tempus, seu 
punctum temporis opportunum ᾽) and its 
distinction from αἰών, χρόνος, and ὥρα, 
see Tittm. Synon. p. 39 sq. TOV η- 
pat} ‘evil, in a moral sense (Gal. 1.4), 
not ‘difficultatum et asperitatis plena,’ 
Beza (comp. Gen. xlvii. 9), which would 
introduce an idea foreign to the context. 
Christians are bidden to walk ἀκριβῶς, 
and to seize every opportunity, because 
‘the days’ (of their life, ©~7n, or of the 
period in which they lived) were marked 
by so much moral evil and iniquity ; 
ἐπεὶ οὖν 6 καιρὸς δουλεύει τοῖς πονηροῖς, 
ἐξαγοράσασϑε αὐτόν, ὥστε καταχρήσασϑαι 
αὐτῷ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, Sever. ap. Cram. 
Caten. 

17. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause;’ 
commonly referred to the clause immedi- 
ately preceding, ἐπειδὴ 7 πονηρία ἀνϑεῖ, 
C&cum., Theophyl. (so De W., Olsh.), 
but far more probably (see Mey.) to ver. 
15, 16, — ‘for this cause, sc. because ye 
ought to walk with such exactness ;’ εἰ 
γὰρ ἔσεσϑε ἄφρονες ἀκριβῶς ov περιπατή- 
σετε, Schol. ap. Cram, Caten. 
συνιέντ ε5] ‘understanding ;’ ‘plus est 
συνιέναι Quam γινώσκειν, ut apparet ex 
hoe loco cum Lue. xii. 47; γινώσκειν 
est nosse, συνιέναι attente expendere,’ Grot. 
(Pol. Syn.). The reading is slightly 
doubtful. Zachm. reads συνίετε with 
AB; 6 mss.; Chrys. (ms.), but on ex- 
ternal evidence inferior to that for the 
participle [συνιέντες, ΒΕ ΚΙ, (συνίοντες, 
D'FG, Alf.) ; nearly all mss.; Clarom., 


128 


συνιέντες τί τὸ ϑδέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 18, 19, 


Ν 
8 καὶ μὴ μεδύσκεσϑε οἴνῳ, 


ks AN n la 
ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσδε ἐν Πνεύματι, ™ λαλοῦντες 


Vulg., Goth., Syr-Phil., al., and many 
ἘΠῚ, and in the face of the high proba- 
bility that the imper. is due to a confor- 
mation to ver. 18. appoves| 
‘unwise,’ “ἄφρων est qui 
mente non recte utitur,’ Tittm. Synon. 
p 148,—where the distinction between 
this word, νήπιος, ἀμόητος, and ἀσύνετος 
is investigated; but see notes on Gal. 
rin 1. 

18. kal μὴ μεϑύσκ.Ὶ ‘And be not 
made drunk with wine ;’ specification of a 
particular instance ; καὶ being here used 
to append the special to the general: on 
this and on the converse use, see notes 
on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. the good note 
of Fritz. Mark i. 5, p. 11. ἐν ᾧ] 
‘wherein,’ Auth.; referring not simply 
to οἶνος (Schoettg.), but to μεϑύσκεσϑαι 
οἴνῳ, scil., ‘in inebriatione,’ Beza; so 
rightly Orig. 1, ap. Cram. Cat. 
ἀσωτία] ‘dissoluteness, Hamm., ‘lux- 
uria,’ Vulg., Clarom.; not inappropri- 
ately Goth., ‘usstiurei’ [unyokedness] ; 


“ senseless ;” 


Tous ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανη- 
ροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν, Arist. Ethic. Nic. 
Iv. 1; comp. Cic. de Fin. 11. 8. ~Aow- 
τος (o@(w) appears to have two mean- 
ings, the rarer, ‘qui servari non potest,’ 
a meaning which Clem. Alex. (Pedag. 
11. 2, p. 184, ed. Pott.) applies to this 
place, τὸ ἄσωστον τῆς μέϑης διὰ τῆς ἄσω- 
τίας αἰνιξάμενος, ---- Πα the more com- 
mon, ‘qui servare nequit ;’ see Trench, 
Synon. § xvi. The latter meaning 
passes naturally into that of ‘ dissolute- 
ness,’ the only sense in which ἀσωτία and 
ἀσώτως are used in the N. T., 6. g., Luke 
XV Ss alittle, 6.0), Pet. ἂν. ἀρ the 
substantive is found Proy. xxviii. 7 
(Trench), to which add 2 Mace, iv. 6, 
where it is joined with κῶμοι ; see also 
Tittm. Synon. p. 152 
ματι] ‘with the Spirit ;’ ἐν being appy. 
primarily, though not exclusively, ¢stru- 


ἐν Πνεύ- 


mental (Vulg., Arm.; see Origen ap. 
Cram. Cat.),— though an unusual con- 
struction with mAnpéw; see however ch. 
i. 23. Meyer cites also Phil. iv. 19, but 
this is a doubtful instance ; still more so 
are Col. ii. 10, iv. 12 (cited by Eadie 
after Harl.), as in the first of these pas- 
sages ἐν is obviously ‘in,’ and in the 
second the reading is more than doubt- 
ful; see notes im loc. There would 
seem to haye been an intentional inclu- 
siveness in the use of this prepp., as 
Matthies (misrepresented by Eadie) sug- 
gests; the Spirit is not the bare instru- 
ment by which, but that ἐπ which and by 
which the true Christian is fully filled. 
Whether the passive πληροῦσϑε hints at 
our ‘reluctant will’ (Mey.) seems doubt- 
ful; there is no doubt, however, that the 
opposition is not between οἶνος and 
Πνεῦμα, but, as the order of the words 
suggests, between the two states ex- 
pressed by the two verbs. On the omis- 
sion of the article (which is inserted in 
FG), see notes on ch. ii. 22, and on Gal. 
Views 

19. λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς] ‘speak- 
ing to one another ;’ —not ‘to yourselves,’ 
Auth.; ἑαυτοῖς being used for ἀλλήλοις, 
as in ch. iv. 82; comp. Col. iii. 16, and 
see Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2. Scholefield 
(JZints, p. 103) and, before him, Bull 
(Prim. Trad. 1. 12), compare the well- 
known quotation, ‘carmen Christo quasi 
Deo dicere secum invicem,’ Pliny, Epist. 
x. 97. Whether the reference is here to 
social meetings (compare Clem. Alex. 
Peedag. τι. 4, p. 194, Pott.}, or expressly 
to religious service (Olsh.), or, more 
probably, to both, can hardly be deter- 
mined from the context. ψαλ- 
μοῖς K. τ. λ.] ‘with psalms and hymns 
and spiritual songs.’ The distinctions 
between these words have been some- 
what differently estimated. Olsh. and 


Cuap. V. 20. 


EPHESIANS. 


129 


e a a δι Ψ \ ? a a ” \ 
ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς Kal ὕμνοις Kal ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ἄδοντες καὶ 


ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, 


Stier would confine ψαλμ. to the Psalms 
of the Old Test., ὕμνος to any Christian 
song of praise ; this does not seem borne 
out by 1 Cor. xiv. 26 (see Alford), com- 
pare James ν. 13. Harless refers the 
former to the Jewish, the latter to Gen- 
tile Christians; Orig. (Cram. Cat.) still 
more arbitrarily defines the ψαλμ. as 
περὶ τῶν πρακτέων, the gd) as περὶ τῆς 
τοῦ κόσμου τάξεως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν δημιουρ- 
γημάτων. In a passage so general as 
the present, no such rigorous distinctions 
seem called for; ψαλμὸ 5 most proba- 
bly, as Meyer suggests, denotes a sacred 
song of a character similar to that of 
the Psalms (ὁ ψαλμὸς ἐμμελής ἐστιν εὐλο- 
γία καὶ σώφρων, Clem. Alex. Peedag. τι. 
4, p. 194); ὕμνος, a song more espe- 
cially of praise, whether to Christ (ver. 
19), or God (ver. 20; comp. Acts xvi. 
25, Heb. ii. 12); ᾧ δή, a definition gen- 
erally of the genus to which all such 
compositions belonged (ὠδὴν πνευματι- 
κὴν ὃ ᾿Απόστολος εἴρηκε τὸν ψαλμόν, 
Clem. Alex. 1. 6.). To this last the epi- 
thet πνευματικαῖς is added,—sec. not 
merely, ‘of religious import,’ Olshaus. 
(‘sancta,’ /Zth.), but in accordance with 
the last clause of ver. 18, ‘such as the 
Holy Spirit inspired and gave utterance 
to;’ ψάλλοντες γὰρ Πνεύμ. πληροῦνται 
ἁγίου, Chrys. Much more curious 
information will be found in the article 
‘Hymni a Christianis decantandi,’ in 
Deyling, Obs. No. 44, Vol. 111. p 430 
sq.; for authorities, see Fabricius, Bib- 
liogr. Antig. x1. 18, and for specimens 
of ancient ὕμνοι, ib. Bibl. Greca, Book 
v. 1. 24. Lachm. inserts ἐν in 
brackets before ψαλμοῖς, but on authority 
[B; 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg., 
Goth., al; Chrys.] nearly the same and 
apparently equally insufficient with that 
[B; Clarom., Sangerm.; Ambrst. ed.] 
on which he (so Alford) similarly en- 


© » fal 
a εὐχαριστοῦντες Trav- 


closes the scarcely doubtful πνευματικαῖς. 
ἄδοντες καὶ WddrAdAovres]| ‘singing 
and making melody in your heart ;’ parti- 
cipial clause, codrdinate with (Mey.), not 
subordinate to (so as to specify the moral 
quality of the psalmody, μετὰ συνέσεως, 
Chrys.) the foregoing λαλοῦντες κ. τ. A. 
Harl. very clearly shows that ἐν τῇ καρ- 
dia, without ὑμῶν, could not indicate any 
antithesis between the heart and lips, 
much less any qualitative definition, — 
‘without lip-service’ (compare Theod., 
Eadie), or ‘heartily,’ like ἐκ τῆς καρδίας 
(κατὰ τὴν καρδ. CEcum.), but that simply 
another kind of psalmody is mentioned, 
that of the inward heart; ‘canentes 
intus in animis et cordibus vestris, Bul- 
ling. (cited by Harl.). 
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, though fairly supported 
[Lachmann with ADEFG; mss.; Cla- 
rom., Vulg., Syr., Goth., Copt., Syr.- 
Phil. in marg.; Bas., Chrys. (2), al.] is 
still properly rejected by Tisch., al. as an 
emendation of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ [B (omits ἐν) 
KL; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., 
Theod., al.] derived from Col. iii. 16. 

20. “giving 
thanks always ;’ third and more compre- 
hensive participial member, specifying 
the great Christian accompaniment of 
this and of all their acts (ch. v. 4, Phil. 
iv. 6, Col. iv. 2, see notes), and prepar- 
ing the way for the further duty ex- 
pressed in yer. 21. It would thus appear 
that the imperative wAnp. ἐν TIv. has four 
participial clauses appended, two of 
which specify more particular, and the 
third a more pervading manifestation of 
the fruits of the Holy Spirit, viz. ᾧδαὶ 
χειλέων (Ecclus. xxxix. 15), δαὶ ἐν τῇ 
καρδίᾳ, and εὐχαριστία, while the fourth, 
brotaco. passes onward to another form 
of Christian duty; see notes ver. 21, 
and for two good sermons on this text, 
Barrow, Sern. vi11., 1x. Vol. 1., p. 179 

17 


The reading 


εὐχαριστ. πάντ.] 


130 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 21, 22. 


ig \ / 5 > 4 a ' e A 3 ἴω ἴω 
TOTE ὑπὲρ πάντων EV ονόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 


τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί, 

Wives be subject to your 
husbands as the Church is 
to Christ. 
union of Christ and the Church. 


ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἔν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ. 
22 e a lal γὼ > ὃ / . lal 
Ai γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ 


Husbands love your wives as Christ loved His Church. Marriage is a type of the mystical 


22. ἀνδράσιν] Tisch. has, with good judgment, rejected the addition of ὑποτάσ- 
ceoXe, —whether after γυναῖκες with DEFG ; Lect.19; Vulg., al., or after ἀνδράσιν, 


sq. ὑπὲρ πάντων] ‘for all things,’ 
Auth. ; not masc., se. ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν 
τῆς εὐεργεσίας μετειληχότων, Theodoret. 
Meyer needlessly limits the πάντα to 
blessings ; surely it is better to say, with 
Theophyl., οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν μόνον, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λυπηρῶν, καὶ ὧν ἴσμεν, καὶ 
ὧν οὐκ ἴσμεν, καὶ γὰρ διὰ πάντων εὐεργε- 
τούμεϑδα κἂν ἀγνοῶμεν. Numerous in- 
stances of similar cumulation and παρή- 
xnois are cited by Lobeck, Paralipom. 
p. 56, 57. ἐν τῷ Ovdmuaril ‘in 
the name ;’ obviously not ‘ad honorem’ 
(Flatt.), nor even ‘per nomen,’ scil. ‘per 
Christum’ (a Lap.), but ‘in nomine,’ 
Clarom , Vulg., Copt., al.: the name of 
Christ is that general and holy element, 
as it were, in which everything (as Harl. 
forcibly remarks) is to be received, to be 
enjoined, to be done, and to be suffered ; 
see Col. iii. 17. The context will always 
indicate the precise nature of the appli- 
cation; see the exx. cited by Alf. zn oc. 
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί] ‘to God and the 
Father ;’ see notes on ch.i.3, and on 
Gal.i.4. The most appy. suitable mode 
of translating this special and august 
title is noticed in notes to Transl. of Gal. 
p- 146 (ed. 2). 

21. ὑποτασσόμενοι 


¢ 


) 


GAANA.| 
‘submitting yourselves to one another ;’ not 
for the finite verb (Flatt.; see contra 
Hermann, Viger, No. 227, Winer, Gr. ὃ 
45.6, p. 314), but a fourth participial 
clause appended to mAnpotode. The 
first three name three duties, more or 
less special, in regard to God, the last a 
comprehensive moral duty in regard to 
man, which seems to have been sug- 


gested by the remembrance of the hum- 
ble and loving spirit, which is the mov- 
ing principle of εὐχαριστία. In the fol- 
lowing paragraph, and under a somewhat 
similar form (ὑπακοή), in v. 1 sq. and vi. 
5 sq., this general duty is inculcated in 
particular instances: ἐπειδὴ κοινὴν τὴν 
περὶ τῆς ὑποταγῆς νομοϑεσίαν προσήνεγκε 
κατ᾽ εἶδος, λοιπὸν παραινεῖ τὰ κατάλληλα, 
Theod. On the distinction between ὕπο- 
taco. (sponte) and πειϑαρχεῖν (coactus), 
see Tittm. Synon. Part τι. p. 3. It 
must be admitted that there is some diffi- 
culty in the connection between this and 
the foregoing participial member. We 
can, however, hardly refer the clause to 
the remote μὴ μεϑύσκ. (‘don’t bluster, 
.. . but be subject,’ Eadie, Alf.), but 
may reasonably retain the connection in- 
dicated above, the exact connecting link 
being perhaps the ὑπὲρ πάντων ; ‘ thank- 
ing God for all things (joys — yea sor- 
rows, submitting yourselves to Him, yea), 
submitting yourselves to one another :’ 
compare Chrys., iva πάντων κρατῶμεν 
τῶν παδῶν, ἵνα τῷ Θεῷ δουλεύωμεν, ἵνα 
τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγάπην διασώζωμεν. 
ἐν φόβῳ Χρ.] ‘in the fear of Christ ;’ 
the prevailing feeling and sentiment ἐπ 
which ὑποταγὴ is to be exhibited; ‘ex 
[in] timore Christi; quia scilicet Chris- 
tum reveremur, eumque timemus offend- 
ere,’ Corn. a Lap. The reading 
Θεοῦ (Rec.) is only supported by cursive 
mss., Clem., and Theod., and is rightly 
rejected by nearly all modern editors. 

22. af yuvatnes| ‘Wives, —sc. be 
subject ;’ first of the three great ex- 
emplifications (husbands and wives, — 


Guar. V. 23. EPHESIANS. 133 


Ὁ 
/ Ὁ >) A 
Κυρίῳ, “ ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς 


with KL; very many Vv.; Chrys., al. (Rec., Scholz), though supported in the 
omission only by B, all Gr. MSS. used by Jerome, and Clem. (Harl., Mey. De W.), 
Lachm. inserts ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν after ἀνδράσιν with A; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., 
Goth. ; Clem. (1), Bas., al. ; the variations, however, and still more the absence of 
the word in the MSS. mentioned by Jerome, render it in a very high degree prob- 


able that the original text had no verb in the sentence. 


parents and children, ch. vi. 1 sq.,— 
masters and servants, ch. vi. 4 sq.) 
of the duty of subjection previously 
specified. A verb can easily and obvi- 
-ously be supplied from the preceding 
verse, — either ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν (Lachm.), 
or more probably, as the imper. in ver. 
25 and Col. iii. 18 suggests, ὑποτάσσεσϑε 
(Ree.). τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν) 
“your own husbands:’ those specially 
yours, whom feeling therefore as well as 
duty must prompt you to obey; comp. 
1 Pet. iii. 1. The pronominal adject. 
ἰδίοις is clearly more than a mere possess. 
pronoun (De W.), or, what is virtually 
the same, than a formal designation of 
the husband, ‘der Ehemann’ (Harl., 
Winer), for St. Paul might have equally 
well used τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, as in Col. iii. 18. 
It seems rather, both here and 1 Pet. iii. 
1, to retain its proper force, and imply, 
by a latent antithesis, the legitimacy 
(comp. John iv. 18), exclusiveness (1 Cor. 
vil. 2), and speciality (1 Cor. xiv. 35) of 
the connection ; see esp. 1 Esd. iv. 20, 
ἐγκαταλείπει τὴν ἰδ. χώραν καὶ πρὸς τὴν 
ἰδ. γυναῖκα κολλᾶται. We may also ad- 
duce against Harl. his own quotation, 
Stobeeus, Floril. p. 22, Θεανῶ --- ἐρωτη- 
Seioa, τί πρῶτον εἴη γυναικί, τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ, 
ἔφη, ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί; clearly ‘her own 
husband, — no one except in that proper 
and special relationship.’ It may still 
be remarked that the use of ἴδιος in later 
writers is such as to make us cautious 
how far in all cases in the N. T. (see 
Matth. xxii. 5, John i. 42) we press the 
usual meaning; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 22, 7, 
Ῥ. 139, and notes on ch. iv. 28. 


ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ] ‘as tothe Lord;’ clearly 
not ‘as to the lord and master,’ which 
perspicuity would require to be τοῖς κυρί- 
ois, but, — to Christ ; ‘ vir Christi imago,’ 
Grot. ; καλὸν τῇ γυναικὶ Χριστὸν αἰδεῖσϑαι 
διὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός, Greg.-Naz. The mean- 
ing of ὡς is somewhat doubtful. Viewed 
in its simplest grammatical sense as the 
pronoun of the relative (Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 737), the meaning would seem 
to be ‘yield that obedience to your hus- 
bands which you yield to Christ ;’ comp. 
Beng. As, however, the immediate con- 
text and, still more, the general current 
of the passage (comp. ver. 32) represent 
matriage in its typical aspect, ὡς will 
seem far more naturally to refer (as in 
ch. vi. 5, 6, comp. Col. iii. 23) to the as- 
pect under which the obedience is to be 
regarded (‘quasi Christo ipsimet, cujus 
locum et personam viri representant,’ 
Corn. a Lap.) than to describe the nature 
of it (Eadie), or the manner (De W.) in 
which it is to be tendered ; see notes on 
Col. iii. 23. Still less probable is a refer- 
ence merely to the similarity between the 
duties of the wife to the husband and the 
Church to Christ (Kop., comp. Eadie), as 
this interpr. would clearly require ὡς 7 
ἐκκλ. τῷ Kup.; see Mey. It is thus well 
and briefly paraphrased by Chrys., ὅταν 
ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρί, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύουσα 
ἡγοῦ πείϑεσϑαι (Sav ): see also Greg.- 
Naz. Orat. xxx1. p. 500 (ed Morell.). 
23. av hp) ‘a husband.’ The omission 
of the article [with all the uncial MSS., 
and nearly all modern editors] does not 
affect the meaning of the proposition, 
but only modifies the form in which it is 


182 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 24. 


κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ TOD σώματος. ™ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἡ 


expressed ; 6 ἀνὴρ would be ‘the hus- 
band,’ ὦ. e. ‘every husband’ (see notes 
on Gal. iii. 20) ; ἀνὴρ is ‘a husband,’ z. e. 
any one of the class; comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 19.1, p. 111; γυνή, on the contrary, 
has properly the article as marking the 
definite relation it bears to the ἀνήρ (‘his 
wife’), on which the general proposition 
is based. ὡς καὶ 6 Xp. x. τ. A] 
‘as Christ also is head — of the Church ;’ 
the ‘being head’ is common to both ἀνὴρ 
and Xp.; the bodies, to which they are 
so, are different. In sentences thus com- 
posed of correlative members, when the 
enunciation assumes its most complete 
form, καὶ appears in both members, 6. 9. 
Rom. i. 13; comp. Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 
1. 1. 6. Frequently it appears only in 
the demonstrative, or, as here, only in 
the relative member ; see Hartung, Par- 
tik. ral, 2.2, Vol. i. p.126. In all these 
cases, however, the particle καὶ preserves 
its proper force. In the former case, 
‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem,’ a 
double and reciprocal comparison is 
instituted between the two words to each 
of which καὶ is annexed ; see Fritz. Rom. 
Vol. 1. p. 88; in the two latter cases a 
single comparison only is enunciated 
between the word qualified by καὶ and 
some other, whether expressed or under- 
stood; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, 
and compare Winer, Gr. § 53. 5, p. 390, 
who, however, on this construction is 
not wholly satisfactory. auTos 
σωτήρ) ‘He Himself is the saviour of 
the body ;’ declaration, apparently with a 
paronomasia (cwtip..... σώματοΞ), of 
an important particular in which the 
comparison did not hold; the clause not 
being appositional (Harl.), but, as the 
use of ἀλλὰ in the following verse seems 
distinctly to suggest (see notes on ver. 
24), independent and emphatic (Mey.) ; 
‘He — and, in this full sense, none other 
than He—is the σωτὴρ of the body.’ 


The reading καὶ αὐτός ἐστι | Rec. with 
D?D°E?KL; majority of mss; Syr. 
(both), Goth., al.; many Ff.] seems 
clearly an explanatory gloss, and is 
rightly rejected by nearly all recent 
editors. 

24. ἀλλά] ‘ Nevertheless.’ The ex- 
planation of this particle is here by no 
means easy. According to the usual 
interpr. αὐτὸς κ. τ. A. (ver. 23) forms an 
apposition to the preceding words, the 
pronoun αὐτὸς (comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 
vi. 10, p. 287) being inserted with a 
rhetorical emphasis. The proof is then 
introduced by ἀλλά, which, according to 
De W., preserves its adversative charac- 
ter in the fresh aspect under which it 
presents the relation; ‘But as the 
Church, ete.;’ see Winer, Gr. ὃ 57. 8, 
p. 529. This is plausible, but, as Meyer 
has ably shown, cannot be fairly recon- 
ciled with the clear adversative force of 
ἀλλά, ---- ‘aliud jam esse, de quo sumus 
dicturi’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2); 
δὲ or οὖν would have been appropriate ; 
ἀλλὰ is wholly out of place. Riickert 
and Harless explain it as resumptive 
(Hartung, Partik. ἀλλά, 2. 7, Vol. 11. p. 
40), but surely, after a digression of only 
four words, this is inconceivable. Eadie 
supposes an ellipsis, ‘be not disobedient, 
etc.,’? an assumption here still more un- 
tenable; as in all such uses of ἀλλά, 
and in all those which he has adduced 
(some of which, e. g. Rom. vi. 5, 2 Cor. 
vii. 11, are not correctly explained) the el- 
lipsis is simple, and almost self-evident ; 
compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 7. 
Amid this variety of interpretation, that 
of Calv., Beng., Meyer, and recently 
Alf. alone seems simple and satisfactory. 
Αὐτὸς x. τ. A. is to be considered as 
forming an independent clause ; it intro- 
duces a particular peculiar only to Christ, 
and therefore in the conclusion is fol- 
lowed, not by οὖν or δέ, but by the fully 


Crap. V. 25, 26. EPHESIANS. 


133° 
᾽ . ς , A a “ \ e A a 
ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται TH Χριστῷ, οὕτως Kal ai γυναῖκες τοῖς 
> ὃ / 3 / 95 Οἱ " ὃ > n \ r 
ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. i ἄνδρες, ἀγωαπῶτε τὰς γυναῖκας 
Φ n \ N a \ 3, , \ > ! Ἀν Ae \ 
ἑαυτῶν, Kayws Kal ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Kal ἑαυτὸν 
/ ig \ > an %—% ὦ » {τ lal 
παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, “ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ KaXapicas TO 


25. τὰς γυναῖκας ἑαυτῶν] The reflexive pronoun was omitted in ed. 1, with AB ; 
5 or 6 mss.; Clem., Origen, al. (Lachmann, Tisch.), but is apparently more rightly 
inserted with DEKL (FG add ὑμῶν) ; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Mey., 
Alf., Wordsw.), as the introduction is not easy to account for, and the omission 


might have arisen from a conformation to the preceding verse. 


adversative ἀλλά : ‘ He is the saviour of 
the body (éhat certainly man is not), nev- 
ertheless, as the Church is subject unto 
Christ, so, etc.’ 
to explain the σωτηρία in reference to 
the other members of the comparison, 
the husband and wife (comp. Bulling., 
Beza, Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 115), 
are all ferced and untenable. The 
reading ὥσπερ for ὡς [Lec. with DE 
KL; most mss.; Theod., Dam.] is 
rightly rejected by most recent editors. 
οὕτως καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘so let wives also 
be (subject ) to their husbands in everything, 
—scil. ὑποτασσέσϑωσαν, supplied from 
the preceding member. The Aec. inserts 
ἐδίοις before ἀνδράσιν with AD E?K ; 
many mss., Vv. and Ff.,— but in opp. 
to preponderant authority; BD!EIFG ; 
2 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., al., and to 
the internal objection that the word was 
an interpolation in accordance with ver. 
22. 

25. οἱ ἄνδρες x. τ. A| ‘ Husbands 
love your own wives ;’ statement of the 
reciprocal duties of the husband ; ἄκουε 


The various attempts 


\ na I 5 1s > a Ska afi 
καὶ πῶς σε TAAL ἀναγκά(ει ἀγαπαν αὐτὴν, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ δεσποτικῶς προσφέρεσϑαι. ἀγάπα 


΄, Set 
yap αὐτήν: ποίῳ μέτρῳ; ᾧ 


» καὶ ὁ Xp. τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν. προνόει αὐτῆς, ὡς καὶ ὃ Χρ. 
ἐκείνης: κἂν δέῃ τι παϑεῖν, κἂν ἀποϑανεῖν 
δι αὐτήν, μὴ παραιτήσῃ, Theophyl. On 
this and the two following verses, see a 
good sermon by Donne, Serm. LXXxv. 
Vol. 1v. p. 63 sq. (ed. Alf.). 


καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. A.| ‘even as Christ 


also loved the Church and gave Himself 


Jor it;’ nearly a repetition of the latter 
part of ver. 2, where see the notes on 
the different details. 

26. ἵνα αὐτὴν ay.| ‘in order that 
He might sanctify it ;’ immediate, not (as 
De W.) remote purpose of the παραδιδό- 
vat, — sanctification of the Church at- 
tendant on the remission of sins in bap- 
tism ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 435 
(Burt.), Taylor, Bapt. 1x. 17, Water- 
land, Hucharist. 1x. 3, Vol. 1v. p. 645. 
Both sanctification and purification are 
dependent on the atoning death of 
Christ, the former as an act contem- 
plated by it, the latter as an act included 
in it. There is thus no necessity to 
modify the plain and natural meaning 
of the verb; ayid¢. here neither implies 
simple consecration (Eadie) on the one 
hand, nor expiation, absolution (Matth.), 
on the other, but the communication and 
infusion of holiness and moral purity ; 
see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 404, comp. 
Suicer, Thesaur, 5. v. 11. a, Vol. p. 54. 
Kasaptoas] ‘having purified it ;’ tem- 
poral participle, here more naturally 
denoting an act antecedent to ἁγιάσῃ 
(Olsh., Mey.) than one contemporane- 
ous with it, as appy. Syr., Vulg., al., 
and, as it would seem, our own Version. 
Eadie is far too hasty in imputing ‘error’ 
to Harl. for maintaining the latter ; it is 
clearly tenable on grammatical (see 
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, notes ch. 
i. 9), but less probable on dogmatical 
grounds ; compare 1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ 


ἀπελούσασϑε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσϑητε. τῷ 


184 
λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, 


λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατο 5] ‘by the [well- 
known] laver of the water ;’ gen. ‘ma- 
terix,’ Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 12, p. 82; comp. 
Soph. Gd. Col. 1599. The reference to 
baptism is clear and distinct (see Tit. iii. 
5, and notes zn Joc.), and the meaning of 
λοῦτρον (‘lavacrum,’ Vulg., Clarom., 


Ἰδοῦ Syr., ‘ bvahla.’ Goth.) — indisput- 
g¢@a 


able: instances have been urged in be- 
half of the active sense of λοῦτρον, 
adopted by Auth. (and perhaps Copt., 
/Eth.), — but in all that have yet been 
adduced (Eeclus. xxxiv. 25 [30], τί ὠφέ- 
λησεν τῷ λουτρῷ αὐτοῦ), the peculiar 
force of the termination (instrumental 
object; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 267, 
Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 403) may 
be distinctly traced: see exx. in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. 8. v. Vol. 11. Ὁ. 83, and comp. 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 277. It 
seems doubtful whether Olsh. is perfectly 
correct in positively denying that there is 
here any allusion to the bride’s bath be- 
fore marriage (Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 
226) ; see ver. 27, which, considered in 
reference with the context, and compared 
with Rey. xxi. 2, makes such an allusion 
far from improbable. ἐν ῥήματι) 
“ἴῃ the word,’ ‘in verbo,’ Clarom, Vulg., 
Copt., Goth. There is great difficulty in 
determining (1) the exact meaning, (2) 
the grammatical connection of these words. 
With regard to the former, we may first 
remark that ῥῆμα occurs (excluding quo- 
tations) five times in St. Paul’s Epp. and 
four in Heb., and in all cases, directly 
Rom. x. 17, Eph. vi. 17, Heb. vi. 5, xi. 
3) or indirectly (Rom. x. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 4, 
Heb. i. 3, xii. 19) refers to words proceed- 
ing ultimately or immediately from God. 
The ancient and plausible reference to 
the words used in baptism (Chrysost., 
Waterl. Justif. Vol. v1. p.13) would thus, 
independently of the omission of the arti- 
cle, scarcely seem probable; see Estius 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 27. 


οἵ Ὁ ΄ τϑν ε - 
τ La παραστήσῃ AUTOS εαυὐτῷ 
in loc. The same observation applies 


with greater or less force to every interp. 
except ‘the Gospel,’ τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίσ- 
τεως, Rom. x. 8, the word of God 
preached and taught preliminary to bap- 
tism (comp. notes ch. i. 13); the omis- 
sion of the article being either referred to 
the presence of the prep. (Middleton, Gir. 
Art. νι. 1), or, more probably, to the 
fact that words of similarly definite im- 
port (6. g. νόμος, χάρις, κ- τ. A-) are fre- 
quently found anarthrous; see Winer, 
(: 1.19, ῬΡ 119. (2) Three con- 
structions obviously present themselves ; 
(a) with ἀγιάσῃ ; (0) with λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδα- 
tos; (c) with καϑαρίσας, or rather with 
the whole expression, ka&. Aoutp. τ. U5. Of 
these (a), though adopted by Jerome, and 
recently maintained by Riick., Winer, 
(Gr. § 20. 2, p. 125) and Meyer, is seri- 
ously opposed to the order of the words, 
and (if ἐν be considered simply instru- 
mental) introduces an idea (ay. ἐν ῥήμ.) 
which is scarcely doctrinally tenable ; the 
second (0) is plainly inconsistent with the 
absence of the article, this being a case 
which is not referable to any of the three 
cases noticed on ch. i. 17, — appy. the 
only ones in which, in constructions like 
the present, the omission can be justified ; 
— the third (c) though not without diffi- 
culties, is on the whole fairly satisfactory. 
According to this view, ἐν ῥήματι has 
neither a purely instrumental, nor, cer- 
tainly, a simple modal force (‘ verheiss- 
ungsweise,’ Harl.), but specifies the nec- 
essary accompaniment, that in which the 
baptismal purification 15 
(comp. John xv. 3), and without which 
it is not granted ; comp. Heb. ix. 22, ἐν 


vouchsafed 


αἵματι πάντα Kadapicerat κ. τ- A., Where 
the force of the prep. is somewhat similar. 

27. ἵνα παραστήσῃ] ‘in order that 
He might present ;’ further and more ul- 
timate purpose of ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῆς (ver. 25), the full accomplishment 


Cuap. V. 98. 


EPHESIANS. 


135° 


» \ ’ / AY ” I x e A ” a 
ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥντίδα % τι τῶν 


/ τ ’ “ > e ἕ \ ” 
τοιούτων, ἀλλ Wa ἢ AYIA καὶ ἄμωμος" 


of which must certainly be referred to 6 
αἰὼν μέλλων (August., Est.), not to 6 
αἰὼν οὗτος (Chrysost., Beng., Harl.), see 
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 406 (ed. Burt.). 
Schoettg. appositely cites the Rabbinical 
interpr. of Cant. i. 5, 71821 738 TAIN, 
in which the swarthiness is referred to 
the Synagogue, m75 thiya [in hoc sec- 
ulo], the comeliness to it, San ΞΕ ΞΊΣΞ [in 
seculo futuro]; see Petersen, von der 
Kirche, 111. 390. The verb παραστήσῃ 
is here used as in 2 Cor. xi. 2, of the 
presentation of the bride to the bride- 
groom, — not of an offering (Harl. ; 
Rom. xii. 1), which would here be a 
reference wholly inappropriate. 

αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ] ‘Himself to Himself;’ 
not ‘for Himself,’ ἡ. 6. for His joy and 
glory (Olsh.), but, with local reference, 
‘to Himself.’ Christ permits neither 
attendants nor paranymphs to present 
the Bride: He alone presents, He re- 
ceives. The reading παραστ. αὐτὴν 
ἑαυτῷ [Rec. with D®EK; most mss. ; 
Chrys., Theod.] is rightly rejected on 
preponderant evidence [ABDIFGL; 15 
mss.; Clarom., Goth., Vulg., al. ; Greek 
and Lat. Ff.] by most modern editors. 
ἔνδοξον ‘the 
Church glorious ;’ the tertiary predicate 
ἔνδοξον (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 489) being 
placed emphatically forward, and receiy- 
ing its further explanation from the par- 
ticipial clause which follows : so, with a 
correct observance of the order, Syr., 
Copt., Ath., probably Clarom., Vulg., 
and all the best modern commentators. 


τὴν ἐκκλησία») 


, 


μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλ ον] ‘not having a 
spot.’ The word σπίλος (μιασμός, ῥύπος. 
Suid.) is a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (2 Pet. 
ii. 13), and belongs to later Greek, the 
earlier expression being κηλίς ; see Lo- 
beck, Phryn. p. 28. Lachmann, Bruder 
( Concord.), Meyer, and others, still retain 
the accentuation σπῖλος. As the iota is 


28 A \ € » 
οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες 


short (comp ἄσπϊλος, Antiph. ap. Anthol. 
Vol. vi. 252) the accentuation in the 
text seems most correct; comp. Arcad. 
Accent. vi. p. 52 (ed. Barker). 

ῥυτίδα] ‘a wrinkle ;’ putis: 7 συνελκυσ- 
μένη σάρξ, Etym. M.; derived from PYQ, 
ἐρύω, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 
317. Ruga and ‘wrinkle’ are probably 
cognate forms ; see ib, p. 314, and comp. 
Diffenbach, Ler. Vol. 1. p. 236. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἵν αἹ ‘but in order that it might be ;’ 
change of construction, as if ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ 
had preceded: similar exx. of ‘oratio 
variata’ are cited by Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 
11.1, p. 509. On the true meaning of 
ἁγία, as applied to the Church, see Pear- 
son, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 403 (Bur- 
ton), Jackson, Creed, x11. 4. 8, and on 
ἄμωμος, see notes ch.i. 4. The context 
might here seem to favor the translation, 
‘omni macula carens’ (comp. Cant. iv.7), 
but it seems more correct to say that the 
first part of the verse presents the con- 
ception of purity, ete., in metaphorical lan- 
guage, the second in words of simply 
ethical meaning. 

28. of rws] ‘Thus,’ ‘in like manner ; 
“ita, scilicet uti Christus dilexit ecclesiam 
quemadmodum jam dixi,’ Corn. a Lap. 
Even if the reading of the Rec. be re- 
tained (οὕτως Op. οἱ ἄνδρ. ay. κ. τ. A. 5 
see below), the reference must still clearly 
be to kadds καὶ ὃ Xp. k. τ. A. Ver. 25—27, 
not as Est. (comp. De W.) suggests, to 
the following és; this latter construction 
being contrary, not necessarily ‘to gram- 
matical law’ (Eadie ; for comp. John vii. 
46, 1 Cor. iv. 1), but to the natural use of 
οὕτως, of which ‘non alia est vis quam 
qu nature ejus consentanea est, ut co 
confirmentur preecedentia, Herm. Viger, 
Append. x. p. 747. In passages like 1 
Cor. /. c. there is an obvious emphasis, 
which would here be out of place. The 
reading is doubtful, as in addition to the 


190 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. V. 29. 


a A tal \ ε lal id 
ὀφείλουσιν ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. 


fal na lal \ an 
ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ: 


evidence in favor of Rec, [KL; nearly 
all mss.; perhaps Syr., Arm.; Chrys., 
Theod., al.] that of B (ὀφείλ. καὶ οἱ 
ἄνδρεΞ) may now be urged for the inver- 
sion; still the authority in favor of the 
text [ADEFG; 2 mss.; Clarom., Vulg., 
Goth., Copt.; Clem., Lat. Ff.] seems 
fairly to preponderate, and owing to the 
testimony of B being of a divided na- 
ture, may perhaps be most safely fol- 
lowed. 
“as (being) their own bodies ;’ 
ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Meier (comp. Alf.), 
but ‘als ihre eigenen Leiber,’ Luth., 
Mey. The context clearly implies that 
Christ loved the Church not merely just 
as (comparatively) He loved His own 
body (scil. ὡς ἑαυτόν, Schoettg.), but as 
being His own body, the body of which 
He is the Head. In the hortatory appli- 
cation, therefore, ὡς must have a simi- 
larly semi-argumentative force; other- 
wise, as Harl. remarks, we should have 
two comparisons, the one with οὕτως, 
the other with ὡς, which certainly mar 
the perspicuity of the passage. In the 


ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα] 
not ‘wie 


present view, on the contrary, the dis- 
tinction is logically preserved; οὕτως 
alone introduces the comparison; ὡς 
with its regular and proper force marks 
the aspects (see notes on ver. 22) in 
which the wives were to be regarded 
(‘as being, in the light of, their own 
bodies’), and thus tacitly supplies to the 
exhortation an argument arising from 
the thus acknowledged nature of the 
ease. For a defence of the simply com- 
parative use of ὡς, see Alf. zn loc. 

ὁ ἀγαπῶν κ. τ. λ.} ‘He that loveth his 
own wife, loveth himself ;’ explanation of 
the preceding ὧς τὰ ἑαυτῶν cou. The 
Apostle’s argument rests on the axiom 
that a man’s wife is a part of his very 
self. Husbands are to love them as 
being their own bodies ; thus their love 


* οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε 


to them is in fact self-love; it is not κατ᾽ 
ὀφειλήν, but κατὰ φύσιν. 

29. οὐδεὶς γάρ κ. τ. λ.}] ‘For no 
one ever hated ;’ confirmation and proof 
of the position just laid down, 6 ἀγαπῶν 
κι τ. A.3; first, it is ultimately based on 
a general law of nature, οὐδείς ποτε 
k. τ. A. (finsitam nobis esse corporis 
nostri caritatem,’ Senec. Hpist. 14, cited 
by Grot.); secondly, it is suggested by 
the example of Christ, καϑὼς καὶ 6 Xp. 
κι tT. A. The whole argument then 
seems to run, ‘Men ought to love their 
wives as Christ loves His Church, as 
being in fact (I might add) their own 
(ἑαυτῶν) bodies; yes, 1 say the man 
who loves his wife loves himself (éav- 
τόν) ; for if he hated her he would hate 
(according to the axiom ; see above) his 
own flesh, whereas, on the contrary, 
unless he acts against nature, he nour- 
ishes it, even as (to urge the comparison 
again) Christ nourishes His Church.’ 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα] ‘His own flesh.’ 
This word appears undoubtedly to have 
been chosen in preference to σῶμα, on 
account of the allusion to Gen. ii. 23, 
which is still further sustained by the 
longer reading of ver. 30 and the quota- 
tion in ver. 31. ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει) 
“but nourisheth,’ ‘ministers to its outward 
growth and development.’ The prep. 
does not appear intensive (‘ valde nutrit,’ 
Beng.), but marks the evolution and 
development produced by the τρέφειν ; 
comp. Xenoph. Gvcon. xvi1. 10, ἐκτρέ- 
gel ἡ γῆ τὸ σπέρμα εἰς καρπόν. καὶ 
ϑάλπει] ‘and cherisheth ;’ ‘fovet’ Cla- 
rom., Vulg.,— more derivatively, Syr., 


mo 
Seno [et curam habet] sim. /®th.- 


Platt, ‘solicite conservat,’ Meyer main- 
tains the literal meaning, ‘warmeth’ 
(comp. Goth. ‘varmeip’), citing Beng, 
‘id spectat amictum, ut nutri vietum.’ 


οὖ 


Cuap. V. 80. EPHESIANS. 19% 


\ e a / 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει Kal Sartre αὐτήν, 


\ \ ye \ 30 © re 
Kay@s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν: ” OTL μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ 


30. ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ] Tisch. (ed. 2) and Lachm. omit 
these words, with AB ; 17. 67**; Copt., &th. (both) ; Method. (1) Ambrst. (Jil, 
Prolegom. p. 69). The external authorities for their insertion are DEFGKL; 
nearly all mss., and Vv.; Iren., Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al.; Hieron., al. (Rec., 
Scholz, Harl., Mey., De W. (2) Alf., Words., — to which now may be added Tisch., 
ed. 7). The preponderance of external authority is thus very decided ; paradiplo- 
matic considerations (See Pref. to Galut. p. xvi.) also suggest the probability of an 
accidental omission, from the transcriber’s eye having fallen on the third αὐτοῦ 
instead of the first; and lastly, internal considerations seem to suggest that the 
words, if an insertion from the LXX, would have been cited more exactly, while 
the omission might so easily have arisen from the appy. material conception pre- 


sented by the clause. 


This seems, however, here an interpr. 
far too definite and realistic; ϑάλπειν 
certainly primarily and properly implies 
‘to warm,’ but still may, as its very ety- 
mological affinities (ϑηλή Odw) suggest, 
bear the secondary meaning, ‘to cher- 
ish,’ the fostering warmth of the breast 
(compare Theocer. /dyl/. x1v. 38) being 
the connecting idea; see 1 Thess. ii. 7, 
ὡς ἂν τροφὺς ϑάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα. 
καϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. λ.] ‘Even as Christ 
the Church, scil. ἐκτρέφει καὶ ϑάλπει, 
with general reference to the tender love 
of Christ towards His Church. Any 
special applications (‘nutrit eam verbo 
et Spiritu, vestit virtutibus,’ Grot.) seem 
doubtful and precarious. The reading 
of Rec. (6 Κύριος τὴν ἐκκλ.) rests only 
on D®KL; majority of mss.; Dam., 
CEcum., and is rightly rejected by nearly 
all modern editors. 

30. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμέν] ‘because we 
are members ;’ reason why Christ thus 
nourishes and cherishes His Church. 
The position of μέλη seems emphatic ; 
“members, —not accidental, but integral 
parts of His body (Meyer), united to 
Him not only as members of His mysti- 
cal body, the Church, but by the more 
mysterious marital relation in which 
Christ in His natural and now glorified 
body stands to His Church. On the 


On these grounds we retain the longer reading. 


important dogmatical application of this 
passage to the Holy Communion, see 
Waterland, Hucharist, ch. vi1. Vol. 1v. 
p. 600, 608, and compare J. Johnson, 
Works, Vol. 11. p. 129 sq. (A. C. Libr.). 
ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸὺς κ. τ. A.| ‘being of His 
Jlesh and of His bones ;’ more exact speci- 
fication of the foregoing words, ἐκ with 
its primary and proper force pointing to 
the origin, to which we owe our spiritual 
being ; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 16. The 
true and proper meaning of these pro- 
found words has been much obscured by 
a neglect of their strict reference to the 
context, and by the substitution of de- 
ductions and applications for the simple 
and grammatical interpretation. We 
must thus set aside all primary reference 
to the sacraments (Theod.), to the Holy 
Communion (Olsh.), to Baptism (comp. 
Chrys.), and certainly to the Crucifixion 
(‘per corporis ejus et sanguinis pretium 
redempti,’ Vatabl. ap. Poli Syn.). A 
reference to the ἐνσάρκωσις (Irene, Her. 
v. 2) is plausible, but untenable; for 
Christ, thus considered, is of our flesh, 
not we of His, John i. 14; and even if 
this be explained away (‘quia in hac 
natura ipse caput est,’ Est., comp. Stier) 
the reference would haye to be extended 
to all mankind, not, as the context re- 
quires, limited to the members of Christ's 


18 


198 


EPHESIANS. 


CHAP: V.isie 


΄ fal a x a \ 9 ~ 5 fal 
σώματος αὐτοῦ, EK τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ. 


31 2 \ ΄ / ” “ \ , \ 
ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει AVS pwIros πατέρα καὶ μητέρα Kal προσ- 


Church. The most simple and natural 
view (comp. Chrys., Beng., Mey.) then 
seems to be this, that the words are cited 
(in substance) from Gen. ii. 23, to con- 
yey this profound truth, — that our real 
(spiritual) being and existence is as 
truly, as certainly, and as actually (not 
ὥσπερ, Theod.-Mops., but γνησίως ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ, Chrysost.) ‘a true native extract 
from His own body’ (Hooker), as was 
the physical derivation of Eve from 
Adam ; see esp. the forcible language of 
Hooker, Heel. Pol. vy. 56. 7, and comp. 
Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 111. § 2, 8, 
and the good note of Wordsw. in loc. 
This is the general truth, which of course 
admits a forcible secondary application to 
the sacraments (comp. Kahnis, Abendm. 
p- 143 sq.); we may truly say, with 
Waterland, that ‘the true and firm basis 
for the economy of man’s salvation is 
this, that in the sacraments we are made 
and continued members of Christ’s body, 
of His flesh and of His bones.’ Our 
union with the Deity rests entirely in 
our mystical union with our Lord’s 
humanity, which is personally united 
with His divine nature, which is essen- 
tially united with God the Father, the 
head and fountain of all,’ Charge, a. Ὁ. 
1739, Vol. v. p. 212. These are weighty 
words. 

31. ἀντὶ τούτου] ‘ For this cause ;’ 
The mean- 
ing is practically the same; ἀντὶ passes 
by a natural transition from its primary 
idea of local opposition (Xenoph. Anab. 

7. 6) through that of counterchange 


ἕνεκεν τοῦτου, Gen. ii. 24. 


IVs, 7; 
(see Winer, Gr. ὁ 47. a, p. 826) to that 
of mere ethical relation. It can scarcely 
be doubted that this verse is nothing 
more than a free citation from Genes. ii. 
24, ἀντὶ taking the place of ἕνεκεν, and 
referring to the same fact, -— the deriva- 
tion of woman from man, which is 


clearly presupposed in the allusions of 
ver. 30. Meyer refers ἀντὶ τούτου with 
punctilious accuracy to the words imme- 
diately preceding, and gives the passage 
a directly mystical interpretation in ref- 
erence to the final and future union of 
Christ with His Church. Somewhat 
differently, and more probably, Chrys., 
Theodoret, Theophyl., Jerome, refer to 
Christ’s coming in the flesh; compare 
Taylor, Serm. xv11.1, ‘Christ descended 
from His Father’s bosom, and contracted 
His divinity with flesh and blood, and 
married our nature, and we became a 
church ;’ see Beng. in loc. To denounce 
summarily such an interpr. as ‘wild and 
visionary ’ (Eadie), seems alike rash and 
inconsiderate. That St. Paul adduces 
the verse as containing a definite allegori- 
cal meaning, may perhaps be consid- 
ered doubtful; but that St. Paul intended 
his readers to make some such applica- 
tion, seems to have been the general 
opinion of the early commentators, is by 
no means incompatible with the context, 
and cannot be confidently denied; see 
Alford in loc. Thus, then, in a certain 
sense, we may with Hofmann ( Weiss. w. 
Εν, Vol. 1. p. 71), recognize in this 
the first prophecy in Seripture ; ‘ primus 
vates Adam,’ Jerome. κατα- 
λείψει x. τ. A.] ‘shall leave father and 
mother.’ Meyer presses the tense some- 
what unnecessarily, as referring to some- 
thing yet to come. Even if in the orig- 
inal passage it designate something 
positively future, there is no reason why, 
in this application and free citation, it 
may not state, not only what will, but 
whatever shall and ought to happen; on 
this ethical force of the future, see 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch., de 
Pent. 111. 11, p. 158 sq. The longer 
reading of Rec. τὸν mar. αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν 


unt. is fairly supported [AD?EKL; 


ΟΒΆΡΕΥ. 32. 


EPHESIANS. 


139 


AX NY / \ \ a by a \ ” ς ΄, ? 
KO NINGETAL Tr pos ΤΡ γυναίκα AUVTOV, καὶ EDOVTAL OL δύο εἰς 


7 / 32 XN if la) / > fe ’ N \ , > 
σάρκα μίαν. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς 


most mss.; Syr., Copt., al.; Orig., al.], 
but is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch. 
Meyer, al., as a conformation to the 
LXX.; see especially the critical com- 
ment of Origen, cited by Tisch. in loc. 
προσκολλ. πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα) 
‘shall be closely joined unto his wife ;’ 
comp. Matt. xix. 5, προσκολληϑήσεται 
τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, where the dat. is used, 
but with little difference of meaning. 
On the close affinity between the dat. 
and the accus. with eis and πρός, and 
their interchange in many passages, see 
Winer, Gr. ὃ 31.5, p. 190. The read- 
ing, however, is somewhat doubtful ; 
Lachm. maintains the dat. with ADE! 
FG; 3 mss.; Meth., Epiph. (compare 1 
Cor. vi. 16); but owing to the fair evi- 
dence for the text [BD®°EKL; nearly all 
mss.; Orig., Chrys., Theod.], and the 
distinct’ notice by Origen (see Tisch. in 
loc.), with less probability than the accus. 
with πρός (Tisch., Mey., al.). 

32. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο] ‘This 
mystery is great, sc. deep ;’ explanatory 
comment on the preceding verse. But 
what mystery ? The answer is not easy, 
as four antecedents are possible ; — (a) 
the text immediately preceding ; τὸ εἰρη- 
μένον, τὸ γεγραμμένον, Stier, Meyer, 
compare Chrys., Theodorus ;— (Ὁ) the 
whole preceding subject, the strict paral- 
lelism between the conjugal relation and 
that between Christ and his Church ; — 
(c) the spiritual purport, ‘non matrimo- 
nium humanum sed ipsa conjunctio 
Christi et ecclesix,’ Beng.;— (d) the 
simple purport and immediate subject 
of the text, ‘arctissima illa conjunctio 
viri et mulieris,’ Est. Of these, (a), 
though not otherwise untenable, involves 
a meaning of μυστήριον, which cannot 
be substantiated by St. Paul’s use of the 
word; vor. being only used by the 
Apostle to imply either something not 


cognizable by (ch. i. 9, iii. 4, and appy. 
vi. 19), or not fully comprehensible by 
unassisted human reason (1 Cor. xiv. 2, 
1 Tim. iii. 9, 16), but not, as here (com- 
pare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 783), ‘a 
passage containing an allegorical im- 
port:’ see Tholuck, Rom. xi. 25, and 
compare Lobeck, Aglaoph. Vol. 1. p. 85, 
89. Of the rest, (b) and (c) are less 
plausible, as in both cases — more espe- 
cially in the latter — the remark ἐγὼ δὲ 
λέγω κ. τ. A. would seem superfluous, 
and the force of the pronoun obscure. 
On the whole, then, (4) seems best to 
harmonize with the context. ‘Thus, 
then, ver. 29 states the exact similarity 
(xadws) of the relationship; ver. 30 the 
ground of the relation in regard of 
Christ and the Church; ver. 31 the 
nature of the conjugal relation, with a 
probable application also to Christ; ver. 
32 the mystery of that conjugal relation 
in itself, and still more so in its typical 
application to Christ and to His Church. 
It is needless to observe that the words 
cannot possibly be urged in favor of the 
sacramental nature of marriage (Concil. 
Trid. xx1y. init.), but it may fairly be 
said that the very fact of the comparison 
(see Olsh.) does place marriage on a far 
holier and higher basis than modern theo- 
ries are disposed to admit; see Harl. in 
loc., and for two good sermons on this 
text, Bp. Taylor, Serm. xvit. XVIII. 
Vol. 1. p. 705 sq. (Lond. 1836). 

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω] ‘but 7 am speaking ;’ 
antithetical comment on the foregoing ; 
ἐγὼ having no special reference to his 
own celibacy (comp. Stier), but, as De 
W. admits, marking, and with emphasis, 
the subjective character of the applica- 
tion and comparison (Winer, Gr. § 22. 
6, p. 138, ed. 6), while the slightly op- 
positive δὲ contrasts it with any other 
interpretation that might have been 


140 


/ 
Χριστὸν Kai εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 


EPHESIANS. 


CHAP. Υ. 38. Ὑ1.1. 


\ a 
8 πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ Kad 


Ὁ ¢ \ a a ἢ 5 Δ 
ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, 


ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. 


Children, obey and honor 
your parents according to 


VI. Ta τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν 


God’s commandment: fathers provoke not your children, but educate them holily. 


adduced (Mey.): ‘the mystery of this 
closeness of the conjugal relation is 
great, but I am myself speaking of it in 
its still deeper application, in reference 
to Christ and the Church;’ μέγα ὄντως 
μυστήριον, τέως μέντοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐκλαμ- 
βάνεται, map ἐμοῦ τουτό, φησιν, ὡς 
προφητικῶς περὶ αὐτοῦ λεχϑέν, Theoph. 
On the general use of λέγω δέ, formula 
“explanandi atque pressius eloquendi ea 
que antea obscurius erant dicta,’ see 
Raphel on 1 Cor. i. 12, and notes on Gal. 
iv. 1. eis Χριστόν] ‘in reference 
to;’ not ‘of,’ Conyb. (comp. Syr.), still 
less ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., but ‘in Chris- 
tum,’ Beza (comp. /&th., Syr.-Phil.), the 
preposition correctly marking the ethical 
direction of the speaker’s words ; comp. 
Acts ii. 25, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, 
p. 354, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 11. 

The prep, is omitted by BK; 10 mss. ; 
Tren., Epiph., Mare., and is bracketed by 
Lachm., but without sufficient reason, as 
the external authorities against it are 
weak, and the probability of an omission, 
from not being understood, by no means 
slight. 

33. πλήν] ‘ Nevertheless,’ 7. e. not to 
press the mystical bearings of the subject 
any further; the particle not being re- 
sumptive (Beng., Olsh.), but, in accord- 
ance with its primary meaning, compara- 
live, and thence contrasting and slightly 
adversative; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
11. p. 725, Donalds. Gr. § 548. 33, and 
notes on Phil. i. 18, where the derivation 
and foree of πλὴν are briefly discussed. 
kal ὑμεῖς of nad ἕνα] ‘ Ye also 
severally ;’ ye also—as well as Christ 
towards His Church. The plural thus 
specified by the distributive of καϑ’ ἕνα, 
‘vos singuli’ (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 31, 


and see Winer, Gr. § 49 a, p. 357), 
passes easily and naturally into the sin- 
gular in the concluding member of the 
sentence. On the striking equivalence 
of κατὰ with ἀνὰ in nearly all its mean-. 
ings (here evinced in the distributive 
use), see esp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 183 sq. 
ὡς ἑαυτόν] ‘as himself,’ scil. ‘as be- 
ing one with himself,’ see notes on ver. 
28. 7 δὲ γυνή κ. τ. λ.] ‘and the 
wife (I bid), that she fear her husband :" 
emphatic specification (with slight con- 
trast) of the duties of the wife: ἡ γυνὴ 
being a simple and emphatic nominative 
absolute (Mey.; contra Eadie, — but 
erroneously), though not of a kind so 
definitely unsyntactic as Acts vii. 40 and 
exx. cited by Winer (Gr. § 28. 3, p. 207, 
ed. 5; see p. 507 ed. 6), and most proba- 
bly dependent, not on an imper., but on 
some verb of command which can easily 
be supplied from the context; see Mey. 
on 2 Cor. viii. 7, Fritz. Diss. in 2 Cor. p. 
126, Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 365 (ed. 5). 
Alford (Cor. 1. c.) suggests βλέπετε, cit- 
ing 1 Cor. xvi. 10, but this is not fully 
in point, as the subject of the imperative 
and the subjunctive is not the same: 
more pertinent is Soph. Gd. Col. 156, 
where, as Ellendt correctly observes,. 
“φύλαξαι adsignificatum habet loquentis 
consilium; hee tibi dico ne,’ ete., Lex. 
Soph. Vol. 1. p. 840. 


Cuapter VI.1. ὑπακούετε k.7.A.| 
“obey your parents in the Lord ;’ ἐν Κυρίῳ 
(Christ, —not God, as Chrys., Theod. ; 
compare ch. iv. 7, v. 21) as usual, de- 
noting the sphere to which the action is 
to be limited (not for κατὰ Kup., Chrys.), 
and obviously belonging, not to τοῖς -yo- 
νεῦσιν, nor to τοῖς γον, and to ὑπακ. 


ΘΕΑΡΥΝ 9. 3: 


2 yj a , 5) } 2 
εν Κυρίῳ: TOUTO yap ἐστιν δίκαιον. ῥ 


EPHESIANS. 


141 


/ \ 
τίμα TOV πατέρα cov 


Ν A , [2 >’ \ ’ \ 7, 5, > i} 3 vA > 
καὶ τὴν μητέρα, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη EV ἐπαγγελίᾳ, Wa εὖ 


(comp. Origen ap. Cramer, Caten.), but 
simply to the latter, — serving thus ta 
define and characterize the nature, and 
possibly limits, of the obedience ; ἐν ois 
ἂν μὴ προσκρούσῃς [Κυρίῳ], Chrys. On 
the more exact nature of these limits 
(here, however, not perhaps very defi- 
nitely hinted at; comp. Alf.), see Tay- 
lor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5, Rule 1 and 4 sq. 
The reading is somewhat doubtful, as ἐν 
Κυρίῳ is omitted by Lachm. on fair au- 
thority [BD1FG; Clarom., Sang., Aug., 
Boern.; Clem., al.]. The external au- 
thorities, however, for its insertion [AD#? 
EKL; nearly all mss. and Vy.; Chrys. 
(expressly), Theod.] seem clearly to pre- 
dominate, and the internal arguments 
are in its favor, as if it had come from 
Col. iii. 20 it would have been inserted 
after δίκαιον ; see Meyer, p. 238. 
τοῦτο yap ἐστιν Bik.| ‘for this is 
right ;? not merely πρέπον, nor merely 
κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον (Theod.), but 
‘in accordance with nature’ (τέκνα γο- 
νεῦσιν) and, as the next verse shows, the 
law of God: kai φύσει δίκαιον, καὶ ὑπὸ 
νόμου προστάσσεται, Theophyl. ; 
comp. Coloss. iii. 20. On the position 
of children in the early church, and the 
relation such texts bear to infant-baptism, 
see Stier, Reden Jes. Vol. v1. p. 924 sq. 
2. τίμα κ. τ. λ.}] ‘Honor thy father 
and thy mother;’ specification of the 
commandment as an additional confir- 
mation of the foregoing precept, and as 
supplying the reason on which it was 
based. Had δίκαιον referred only to this 
command, some causal particle would 
more naturally have been appended. As 
it stands, however, the solemn recitation 
of the commandm. blends the voice of 
God with that of nature. Artes] 
‘the which;’ the pronoun not haying 
here a strongly causa/, but rather an ex- 
planatory force ; see notes on Gal. ii: 4, 


TOU 


Vv. 24, πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ] 
‘the first in regard of promise,’ scil., ‘as a 
command of promise ;” compare Syriac 


δ δον pore [primum quod 


promittit] : not exactly ‘with promise’ 
Beza, Alf., al., as the prep. here seems 
naturally used not so much to state the 
accompaniment as to specify the exact 
point in which the predication of πρώτη 
was to be understood ; so rightly Chrys. 
(οὐ τῇ τάξει [‘in regard of order,’ notes 
on Gal. i. 22] εἶπεν αὐτὴν πρώτην, ἀλλὰ 
τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ), and expressly Winer, Gr. 
§ 48. a. obs. p. 349. Meyer cites Diod. 
Sic. x11t. 37, ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ 
πρῶτος. Some little difficulty has been 
found in the use of πρώτη, owing to the 
2nd commandm. seeming to involve a 
kind of promise; see Orig. ap. Cram. 
Cat. If this be considered as not a defi- 
nite ἐπαγγελία (Calv.), still πρώτη would 
seem unusual, as the fifth commandm. 
would then be the only one which has a 
promise: nor would the assumption that 
it is ‘first’ on the second table (not such 
a recent division as Meyer after Erasm. 
seems to think, see Philo, de Special. 
Legg. Vol. 11. p. 300, ed. Mang.) relieve 
the difficulty, as the same objection 
would still remain. We may perhaps 
best explain the statement of priority by 
referring it, not to all other foregoing 
commands (Harl.), but to all the other 
Mosaic commands (Mey.), of which the 
decalogue forms naturally the chief and 
prominent portion; simply, then, ‘the 
first command we meet with which in- 
volves a promise.’ It may be ob- 
served that the article is not needed 
with πρῶτος ; ordinals being from their 
nature sufficiently definite ; comp. Acts 
xvi. 12, and see Middleton, Greek Art. 
νι. 3, p. 100. 

8. ἵνα εὖ σοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘in order that 


142 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuapr. VI. 3, 4. 


\ A aA \ e La 
σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. * Καὶ οἱ πατέρες͵ 


it may be well with thee ;’ a slightly varied 
citation from the LXX, Exod. xx. 12, 
Deuteron. v. 16, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ 
ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς [Tis 
ἀγαδϑῆς, Exod. /. ς.] ἧς Κύριος ὃ Θεός σου 
The omission of the latter 
words can scarcely have arisen from the 
Apostle’s belief that his hearers and 
readers (Gentiles) were so familiar with 
the rest of the quotation, that it would 
be unnecessary to cite it (see Mey.) ; for 
thus τῆς γῆς must be translated ‘the 
land’ (of Canaan, — simply and _histor- 
ically, Meyer) and the promise denuded 
of all its significance to Christian chil- 
dren. It is far more probable (see 
Eadie) that the omission was intended 
to generalize the command, and that, 
not merely ‘toti genti’ (Beng.), nor in 
typical ref. to heaven (Hamm., Olsh., 
see Barrow, Decal. Vol. v1. 524), but 
simply and plainly, to individuals, sub- 
ject, of course, to the conditions which 
always belong to such temporal prom- 
ises ; see Leighton, Expos. of Command, 
p- 487 (Edinb. 1845). kal €on 
μακρ.] ‘and (that) thou be long-lived,’ “ et 
sis longevus,’ Vulgate. The future is 
commonly explained as a lapse into the 
‘oratio directa’ (see Winer, Gir. § 41. "Ὁ. 
1, p. 258), but is more probably to be 
regarded as dependent on ἵνα (so Vulg., 
/Eth., Arm., all of which use the sub- 
junct.),— a construction which though 
not found in Attic Greek (see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 630) certainly does 
occur in the N. T. (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 18, 
Rey. xxii. 14, and see Winer, /. c.), har- 
monizes perfectly with the classical use 
of ὅπως (see the numerous exx. cited by 
Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 209, sq.), and is 
here eminently simple and natural; com- 
pare Meyer in loc. Whether, however, 
we can here recognize a ‘logical climax” 
(Mey.), is doubtful; the future undoubt- 
edly does often express the more lasting 


δίδωσί σοι. 


and certain result (compare Rev. /. c., 
where the single act is expressed by the 
aor. subj., the lasting act by the future) ; 
still, as the present formula occurs in 
substance in Deut. xxii. 7 (Alex.), and 
might have thence become a known 
form of expression, it seems better not 
to press the future further than as repre- 
senting the temporal evolution of the εὖ 
γένεσϑαι. 

4. καὶ οἱ πατέρες] ‘And ye 
fathers ;’ corresponding address to the 
parents in the persons of those who bore 
the domestic rule, the πατέρες ; compare 
Meyer iz loc. Bengel remarks on the 
presence of the καὶ here and ver. 9, and 
its absence, ch. v. 25; ‘facilins parentes 
et heri abutuntur potestate sud quam 
mariti.’ This distinction is perhaps 
over-pressed ; καὶ here and ver. 9 intro- 
duces a marked and quick appeal (see 
Hartung, Partikel. καί, 5.7, Vol. 1. 149), 
and also marks that the obligation was 
not all on one side, but that the superior 
also had duties which he owed to the 
inferior. The duty is then expressed 
negatively and positively. μὴ 
παροργίζετ εἾἹ ‘provoke not to wrath ;’ 
see Col. iii. 21, μὴ epeSi€ere τὰ τέκνα 
(Rec., Tisch.) ; negative side of exhorta- 
tion (οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀγαπᾶτε αὐτά. τοῦτο γὰρ 
καὶ ἀκόντων ἣ φύσις ἐπισπᾶται, Chrys.), 
not with reference to any stronger acts 
such as by disinheriting, ete. (Chrys.), 
but, as Alf. rightly suggests, by all the 
vexatious circumstances which may 
occur in ordinary intercourse ; ϑεραπεύ- 
ew καὶ μὴ λυπεῖν ἐκέλευσε, Theod. 
ἐκτρέφετ ε] ‘bring up, educate; 
ethical sense, καλῶς ἐκτρέφει πατὴρ δί- 
katos, Proy. xxiii. 24; so, frequently in 


? in an 


‘Plato; compare Polyb. Hist. 1. 65. 7, 


ἐν παιδειαῖς καὶ νόμοις ἐκτεϑραμμένων 
(Winer). In ch. ν. 29, the reference is 
simply physical, but the force of the 
compound is the same in both passages ; 


Cuap. VI. 5. 


EPHESIANS. 


145 


ἡ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνω ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐ δεί 
μὴ παροργ τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἃ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν παιδείᾳ 


καὶ νουδεσίᾳ Κυρίου. 


Servants obey and faith- 
fully do your duty to your 


ὅ Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ 


masters as unto Christ, and ye shall receive your reward; masters do the like in return. 


see notes in loc. 
καὶ νουϑεσίᾳ] ‘in the discipline and 
admonition ;? ‘in disciplinad et conrep- 
tione,” Vulg.; not instrumental, but as 
usual ‘in the sphere and influence of ;’ 
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346 note. 
These two words are not related to one 
another as the general (παιδ.) to the 
special (Harl., Mey.), but specify the two 
methods in the Christian education of 
children, training by act and discipline, 
and training by word; so Trench, Syn- 
onymns, ὃ XXx11., and before him, Grot., 
‘maid. hic. significare videtur institutio- 
nem per penas ; vous. autem est ea insti- 
tutio que fit verbis. This Christian 
meaning of παιδεύω and παιδεία, ‘per 
molestias eruditio’ (August.), seems 
occasionally faintly hinted at in earlier 
writers ; comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 5, and 
Polyb. Hist. 11. 9. 6, where the adverb 
ἀβλαβῶς marks that the παιδεύειν was a 
word that needed limitation. On the 
later form vovSecia instead of νουϑέτη- 
σις, see Moeris, Lex. p. 248 (ed. Koch), 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 512, 520. 

Κυρίου] ‘Of the Lord;’ subjecti,— 
belonging to the general category of the 
possessive genitive, and specifying the 
Lord (Christ), as Him by whom the 
νουϑεσία and παιδεία were, so to say, pre- 
scribed, and by whose Spirit they must 
be regulated; so Harl., Olsh., Meyer. 
The gen. objecti ‘about the Lord’ (‘mo- 
nitis ex verbo Dei petitis,’ Beza), though 
apparently adopted by all the Greek 
commentators (compare Theodoret, τὰ 
Seta παιδεύειν), seems far less satisfac- 
tory. Meyer reads τοῦ Κυρίου but as it 
would seem, by accident; there is no 
trace of such a reading in any of the 
critical editions. 


ἐν παιδείᾳ 


5. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα) 


‘to your masters according to the flesh ;᾿ 
κατὰ σάρκα here, as in Col. iii. 22 (where 
it precedes κυρ.), serving to define and 
qualify κυρίοις, ‘your bodily, earthly 
masters; see notes on ch. i. 19, ii. 11. 
Both here and Col. /. c. (where the men- 
tion of 6 Κύριος immediately follows) 
the adverbial epithet would seem to have 
been suggested by the remembrance of 
the different relation they stood in to 
another Master, τῷ κατὰ πνεῦμα καὶ κατὰ 
σάρκα Kup. Whether anything consola- 
tory, (κατὰ σάρκα ἐστὶν 7 δεσποτεία, πρόσ- 
καιρος καὶ βραχεῖα, Chrys.) or alleviating 
(‘manere nihilominus illis intactam li- 
bertatem,’ Calv.) is further couched in 
the addition, is perhaps doubtful (see 
Harl.), still both, especially the latter, 
are obviously deductions which must 
have been, and which the Apostle might 
possibly have intended to be made. On 
the stricter but here neglected distine- 
tion between κύριος and δεσπότης, see 
Trench, Synon. § XXvit. Lachm. 
places κατὰ σάρκα before κυρίοις with 
AB; 10 mss; Clem., Chrys. (1), Dam., 
al.,— but such a position is rightly re- 
jected by Tisch., and most recent editors, 
as so probable a conformation to Col. iii. 
Ope. μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου] 
‘with fear and trembling. By comparing 
PS οι 9. 2. Corvin. 15; Phill nu. 12; 
where the two words are united, it does 
not seem that there is any allusion to the 
‘durior servorum conditio’ (Wolf, Ben- 
gel, compare Chrys.), but only to the 
‘anxious solicitude’ they ought to feel 
about the faithful performance of their 
duties ; comp. Hammond on Phil. ii. 12, 
where, however, the idea of ταπεινοφρο- 
σύνη (Hamm.) is not so prominent as 
that of distrust of their own powers, 
anxiety that they could not do enough ; 


144 


EPHESIANS. 


Crarv. VI. 6. 


, \ , \ , > e t A , ἘΝ e 
σάρκα μετὰ φόβου Kal τρόμου, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς 
τῷ Χριστῷ: " μὴ κατ᾽ ὀφ αλμοδουλείαν ὡς ἀν) ρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ᾽ 


see notes in loc. ἐν ἁπλότητι 
τῆς καρδίας ὕμ.}] ‘in singleness of 
heart ;’ ‘in simplicitate cordis,’ Clarom., 
Vulg., Syr.; element in which their 
anxious and solicitous obedience was to 
it was to be no hypocritical 
anxiety, but one arising from a sincere 


be shown : 


and single heart; καλῶς εἶπεν, ἔνι yap 
μετὰ φ. Kal Tp. δουλεύειν οὐκ ἐξ εὐνοίας δέ, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν ἐξῇ, Chrys. The term ἀπλό- 
Τῆς occurs seven times (2 Cor. 1. 12 is 
doubtful) in the N. T. (only in St. Paul’s 
Epp.), and in all marks that openness and 
sincerity of heart (not per se ‘liberality,’ 
see the good note of Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
111. 62) which repudiates duplicity, in 
thought (2 Cor. xi.3) or action (Rom. 
xii. 8). It is joined with ἀκακία (Philo, 
Opif. ὃ 41, p. 38, ὃ 55, p. 61), with aya- 
Sérns (Wisdom i. 1), and is opposed to 
ποικιλία, πολυτροπία (Plato, Rep. 404 B ; 
comp. Hipp. Min, 364 &, where Achilles 
is contrasted with Ulysses), κακουργία, 
and κακοηϑεία (Theoph., Theod., 2x loc.) ; 
see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 436, comp. 
Tittm. Synon. p. 29, and on the script- 
ural aspects of singleness of heart, Beck, 
Seelenl. 111. ὃ 26, p. 105 sq. 

6. μὴ Kar ὀφϑαλμοδουλεία»ν] 
“not in the way of eye service;’ further 
specification on the negative side of the 
preceding ἐν ἁπλότ., the prep. with its 
usual force designating the rule or ‘ nor- 
mam agendi,’ which in this case they 
were not to follow; see exx. in Winer, 
Gr. ὃ 49. ἃ, p. 358. The word ὀφϑαλ- 
0d. appears to have been coined by St. 
Paul, being only found here and Col. iii. 
22: the adj. ὀφϑαλμόδουλος occurs in 
Constitut. Apost. Vol. 1. p. 299 a (ed. 
Cotel.), but in reference to this passage. 
The meaning is well expressed by Cla- 
rom., Vulg., ‘non ad oculum servientes ’ 
(comp. Syr.), the ref. being primarily to 
the master’s eye (uh μόνον παρόντων τῶν 


δεσποτῶν καὶ ὁρώντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπόντων, 
Theophyl.; compare Xen. (Qcon. x11. 
20), and thence generally, and as in the 
present case, 7 οὐκ ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας 
προσφερομένη Sepamela, ἀλλὰ τῷ σχήματι 
κεχρωσμένη, Theodoret. The more cor- 
rect form seems ὀφϑαλμοδουλία, see L. 
Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. Vol. v. p. 
1088, 2446. ἀνῶιρωπάρεσκοι) 
‘men-pleasers ;’ Psalm lii. 6, ὁ Θεὸς διεσ- 
Lobeck 
(Phryn. p. 621) remarks on the question- 
able forms εὐάρεσκος, δυσάρεσκος, but ex- 
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
δοῦλοι Xp.| ‘but as bondservants of 
Christ ;’ contrasted term to ἀνϑρωπαρ. ; 


5 ~ ΕΣ / 
κόρπισεν ὀστᾶ aVSpwmraperKwr. 


cepts ἀνωρωπάρεσκος. 


τίς γὰρ Θεοῦ δοῦλος dy ἀνωρώποις ἀρέσκειν 
βούλεται ; τίς δὲ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκων Θεοῦ 
δύναται εἶναι δοῦλος ; Chrys. : comp. ver. 
7, where the opposition is more fully 
seen. Riickert removes the stop after 
Xp., thus regarding ποιοῦντες as the prin- 
cipal member in the opposition, δοῦλοι 
Xp. only a subordinate member which 
gives the reason and foundation of it. 
This, though obviously harsh, and com- 
pletely marring the studied antithesis 
between ἀνϑρωπάρεσκοι and δοῦλοι 
Χριστοῦ is reintroduced by Tisch. (ed. 
7), but properly rejected by other recent 
editors. The article before Χριστοῦ | Rec. 
with D3EKL; most mss.; Chrys., 
Theod.] is rightly struck out by Lachm., 
Tisch., al., on preponderant external 
authority. ποιοῦντες K.T.A.| 
“doing the will of God from the soul ;’ par- 
ticipial clause defining the manner in 
which their δουλεία to Christ was to be 
exhibited in action. The qualifying 
words ἐκ ψυχῆς are prefixed by Syr., 
JEth.-Platt., Arm., Chrys., and some 
recent editors and expositors (Lachm., 
De W.., Harl., Alf., al.) to the participial 
clause which follows, but more naturally 
and it would seem correctly connected 


Cnapr. VI. 7, 8: EPHESIANS. 


145 


ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες TO ϑδέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς; 


7 > > Τὴ ὃ / id fal K ! \ ’ » ΄ὔ 
μέτ ευνοιᾶς ουλεύοντες WS TO υριῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνδρώποις, 


8 γὼ ἡ Ὡ a SEL ee / > , a rt 
εἰδότες OTL O EQV TL εκαστος “ΠΟΙ σῇ ἀγαδόν, Τοῦτο κομίσεται 


8. ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος] So Tisch. with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), al. ; 
Chrys. (3), but ap. for ἕκ. (2), Theod. (adds ἡμῶν), Dam., Theoph., Gicum. (Ree., 
Griesb., Scholz, De W., Meyer). The shorter and inverted reading, ἕκαστος ὁ ἐάν, 
is supported by very strong external authority, viz., by ADEFG; many mss. ; 
Vulg., Clarom., al.; Bas., al. (Lachm., Riick., Wordsw.) ; still the internal argu- 
ments derived from paradiplomatic (see Pref. to Gal. p. xvi.) considerations are so 
decided that we seem fully authorized in retaining the reading of Tisch. The ex- 
ample is instructive, as it would seem the numerous variations can all be referred 
either to (a) correction, or (Ὁ) error in transcription, or both united. For exainple, 
(a) the tmesis seems to have suggested a correction 6 τὶ ἐάν, and then, on account 
of the juxtaposition of ὅτι ὅ τι, the further correction of AB, al. Again it is (Ὁ) 
not improbable that owing to the homceoteleuton, ὃ ἐάν τι was, in some mss. acci- 
dentally omitted, and that the unintelligible reading ὅτι ἕκαστος ποιήσῃ then re- 
ecived various emendations : thus we may account for the insertion of ὁ ἐάν τις (1. 
27. 31), ἐὰν τις (62. 179), day τι (46.115), 6 ἐάν (23. 47), between ὅτι and ἕκ., all 
of which have this value, that they attest the position of ἕκαστ. adopted in the 


text. 


by Clarom. (where ἐκ ψυχῆς concludes 
the στίχος), Copt., Aith.-Pol., Syr.-Phil., 
Auth. (Zisch., Mey., Wordsw., al.), with 
the present participial clause. Far from 
there thus being any tautology (De W.), 
there is rather a gentle climactic expla- 
nation of the characteristics of the δοῦλ. 
Xp.; he does his work heartily, and be- 
sides this, feels a sincere good-will to his 
master: comp. Col. ili. 23, ἐκ ψυχῆς ép- 
γάζεσϑε, which, though claimed by De 
W. as supporting the other punctuation, 
is surely more in favor of that of the 
text. On the varied uses of ψυχή (here 
in ref. to the inner principle of action), 
see Delitzsch, Psychol. τν. 6, p. 159 sq. 
7. μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ.] ‘with good 
will doing service ;’ further specification 
of the nature and character of the ser- 
vice; μετ᾽ εὐνοίας implying not merely 
‘lubenti animo’ (Grinf. Hell. Test.), but 
‘cum benignitate,’ Clarom., ‘cum cogi- 
tatione bona,’ Copt., in reference to the 
well-disposed (“ well-affected,’ Eadie) 
mind with which the service was to be 
performed. Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 


19 


489) very appositely cites Xenoph. 
(icon. p. 673 [x11. 5], οὐκοῦν εὔνοιαν 
πρῶτον, ἔφην ἐγώ, δεήσει αὐτὸν [τὸν ἐπίτ- 
ροπον] ἔχειν σοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοῖς εἰ μέλλοι 
ἀρκέσειν ἀντὶ σοῦ παρών. ἄνευ γὰρ εὐνοίας 
τί ὄφελος κι τ. A. This quotation cer- 
tainly seems to confirm the distinction 
made by Harl. (to which Mey. objects) 
that while ἐκ ψυχῆς seems to mark the 
relation of the servant to his work, μετ᾽ 
εὐνοίας points to his relation to his 
master: so also the author of the Constit. 
Apost. Iv. 22, εὔνοιαν εἰσφερέτω πρὸς τὸν 
δεσπότην, Vol. 1. p. 302 (ed. Cotel.) : 
see exx. in Elsner, Ots. Vol. 1. p. 228. 
The Atticists define evy. as both ἀπὸ τοῦ 
μείζονος πρὸς τὸν ἐλάττονα and vice versa, 
εὐμένεια as only the former, see Thom. 
Mag. p. 368 (ed. Jacobitz), and exx. in 
Wetst. in loc. The insertion of ὡς 
before τῷ Kup. [Rec. omits with D°EKL; 
mss. ; Theod., al.] is supported by pre- 
ponderant authority. 

8. εἰδότες] ‘seeing ye know;’ con- 
cluding participial member, giving the 
encouraging reason (σφόδρα Sappeiv περὶ 


140 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 9. 


παρὰ Κυρίου, εἴτε δοῦλος εἴτε édev'Sepos. ° Kai οἱ κύριοι, τὰ 


by \ a \ > te 5 , ἈΝ 5 / >’ , Ὁ Ν 
αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀνιέντες τὴν ὥπειλην; εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ 


τῆς ἀμοιβῆς, Chrys.) why they were to 
act with this honesty and diligence. 
The imperatival translation, ‘atque sci- 
tote’ (Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 491), 
is not grammatically tenable (compare 
Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313), and mars 
the logical connection of the clauses. 
The translation of participles, it may be 
observed, must always be modified by 
the context; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 45. 2, p. 
307, but correct, there what cannot be 
termed otherwise than the erroneous 
observation that such participles admit 
of a translation by means of relatives ; 
the observation so often illustrated in 
these commentaries — that a participle 
without the article can never be strictly 
translated as a part. with the article — 
appears to be of universal application ; 
see esp. Donalds. Gi. § 490. 

ὃ ἐάν τι κ. τ. λ.] ‘whatsoever good thing 
ἐὰν coalescing 
with the relative and being in such con- 
nections used simply for ἂν both by 
writers in the N. T., LXX, and late 
Greek generally. In the passages col- 
lected by Viger (Jdiom. vii1. 6), from 
classical authors, ἂν clearly must be 


each man shall have done ;’ 


written throughout; see Herm. in loc. 
and Winer, Gr. § 42. 6. obs. p. 277. 
The relative is separated from τὶ by a 
not uncommon ‘tmesis,’ instances of 
which are cited by Meyer, e. g. Plato, 
Legg. 1X. 864 8, ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ 
[Lysias], Polystr. p. 160, ὃς ἄν τις ὑμᾶς 
εὖ ποιῇ, ---- but here some edd. read ὅταν. 
The reading κομιεῖται [Rec. with D®E 
KL; most mss.; Bas., Chrys., Theod.] 
is rightly rejected by recent editors, both 
on preponderant external authority, and 
as derived from Col. ἰ. c. The τοῦ is 
also rightly struck out before Κυρίου. 

τοῦτο Kom. παρὰ Κυρίου) ‘this 
shall he receive (back) from the Lord 
(Christ) ;’ ‘this, — and fully this,’ ex- 


pressed more at length Col. iii. 24, 25. 
The ‘appropriative’ middle κομίζεσϑαι 
(see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 432. bb, and § 
434, p. 450) refers to the receiving back 
again, as it were, of a deposit; so that 
in κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε, Col. ἰ. 6. (comp. 
2 Cor. ν. 10), there is no brachylogy ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 66.1. b, p. 547, and 
compare notes in loc. The tense seems 
obviously to refer to the day of final 
retribution ; ἐπειδὴ εἰκός ἐστι πολλοὺς 
τῶν δεσποτῶν μὴ ἀμείβεσϑαι τῆς εὐνοίας 
τοῖς δούλοις, ἔκ ει αὐτοῖς ὑπισχνεῖται τὴν 
ἀμοιβήν, (σι. εἴτε δοῦλος 
εἴτε ἐλ.] ‘whether he be bond-slave or 
Jree;’ whatever be his social condition 
here, the future will only regard his 
moral state; μετὰ τὴν ἐντεῦϑεν ἐκδημίαν 
[ἔδειξε] οὐκ ἔτι“ δουλείας διαφοράν, Theod. 

9. καὶ οἱ κύριοι] ‘And ye masters ;’ 
corresponding duties of masters similarly 
enunciated positively and negatively 
(ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπ.), and concluded with a 
similar participial clause expressing the 
motive. The negative statement of the 
duty is omitted in the parallel passage, 
Col. iv. 1. On the use of καί, see notes 
on ver. 4. τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε] 
‘do the same things towards them ;’ ‘evince 
in action the same principles and feel- 
ings towards them; preserve the ‘jus 
analogum’ (Caly.) in your relations to 
them.’ It does not seem necessary to 
restrict τὰ αὐτὰ to μετ᾽ εὐνοίας δουλ εύ- 
εἰν (Chrys.), or to ποιεῖν τὸ DEA. κ. τ. λ. 
(Riick.), or, on the other hand, to ex- 
tend it to ἐν ἅπλ., as well as to the other 
details (Origen, Cram. Caten. ; compare 
Eadie), the reference being rather to the 
general expression of feeling, the εὔνοια 
which was to mark all their actions, ἵνα 
εὐνοϊκῶς --- ϑεραπεύσωσι, Theodoret, or, 
as more correctly modified by Stier, — 
κυριεύσωσι; ‘ea que benevolentie sunt 


compensate,’ Beng. ἀνιέντες 


Cnap. VI. 10. 


EPHESIANS. 


147 


> lal ‘ e lal ¢ , Jt » 3 > a \ , 
αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν ὁ Κύριδς ἐστιν ἐν ovpavols Kal πρροσωπολημψῆία 


> ” ’ > lal 
OUK ἐστιν Tap QUT. 
Put on the panoply of God; 
arm yourselves against your 


Ὁ Τὸ λοιπόν, ἐνδυναμοῦσδε ἐν Κυρίῳ καὶ ἐν 


spiritual foes with all the defensive portions of Christian armor and the sword οὐ the Spirit. Pray that we 


may be bold, 


τὴν ἀπειλήν] ‘giving up your threat- 
ening, ‘the too habitual threatening,’ 
“quemadmodum vulgus dominorum so- 
let,’ Erasm. Paraphr. (cited by Meyer) ; 
explanatory participial clause (De W., 
here wholly miscited by Eadie), specify- 
ing a course of action, or rather of non- 
action, in which the feeling was to be 
particularly exhibited. As ἀπειλὴ ex- 
presses, by the nature of the case, a cer- 
tain and single course of action, the 
article does not appear to be used, as 
with ἀδικία, ἀκολασία, al., to specify the 
particular acts (Middleton, Art. v. 1. 1), 
but to hint at the common occurrence of 
ἀπειλὴ, see ib. v. 1. 4. It is thus not 
necessary to modify the meaning of ἀπ. 
(‘hardness of heart,’ Olsh.); St. Paul 
singles out the prevailing vice, and most 
customary exhibition of bad feeling on 
the part of the master, and in forbidding 
this, naturally includes every similar 
form of harshness. εἰδότες ὅτι 
κι τ. λ.] ‘seeing ye know that both their and 
your master is in heaven ;’ causal particip- 
ial member exactly similar to that in 
ver. 8; see notes in loc. The reading 
is somewhat doubtful; the order in the 
text is adopted by Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf, and long since by Simon Colin- 
zeus (ed. N. T. 1534) with ABD! (sup- 
ported partially by L; 6 mss., al., καὶ 
bu. καὶ αὐτ.) ; mss., Vulg., Goth., Copt., 
al.; Clem., al.,—but designated by 
Mill, Prolegom. p. 115, as ‘argutius 
quam verius.’ This is not a judicious 
criticism, for the probability of an omis- 
sion of καὶ ὑμῶν, owing to homeeoteleu- 
ton, is far from small, and seems very 
satisfactorily to account for the various 
readings ; see Mey. zn (oc. (Crit. Notes), 
p. 239. προσωπολημψία!] 
‘respect of persons ;’ personarum accep- 


tio, Clarom., Vulg., ‘ vilja hatpei,’ Goth. ; 
on the meaning of this word, see notes 
on Gal. ii. 6, and on the orthography, 
Tisch. Prolegom. in N. T. p. Xivit. 

10. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘Finally, ‘as to 
what remains for you to do ;’ μετὰ τὸ δια- 
τάξαι, φησί, τὰ εἰκότα τοῦτο ἀκόλουϑον 
καὶ ὑπόλοιπον, Cicum.; ‘formula con- 
cludendi [see Chrys.], et ut ad magnam 
rem excitandi,’ Beng.; see 2 Cor. xiii. 
11, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and 
compare notes on Phil. l.c. On the dis- 
tinction between τὸ λοιπὸν and τοῦ λοι- 
ποῦ [adopted here by Lachm. with AB ; 
3 mss.; Cyr., Dam.,—evidence obvi- 
ously insufficient], see notes on Gal. vi. 
17; and between it and τὸ μέλλον 
(merely ‘in posterum’) the brief dis- 
tinctions of Tittmann, Synon. p. 175. 
The insertion of ἀδελφοί μου before 
ἐνδυν. [Rec., Wordsw. with KL (FG, al. 
omit μου) ; most mss.; Syr., Copt., al. ; 
Theod., al.| has the further support of 
A, which adds ἀδελφοὶ after évd., —but is 
appy. rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., 
al. on good external authority [BDE; 
Clarom., Sang., Goth., th. (both) 
Arm.; Cyr., al.], and as appy. alien to 
the style of an Epistle in which the 
readers do not elsewhere appear so 
addressed ; see Olsh. and Alf. zn loc. 

“be 


ἐνδυναμοῦσϑ εἸ strengthened ; ᾿ 


ἜΣ ΑΨ 2| [corroboremini] Syr., — less 
ahs NY 


definitely, ‘be strong,’ Auth.; not mid- 
dle, ‘corroborate vos,’ Pisc., but (as 
always in the N. T.) passive ; compare 
Acts ix. 22, Rom. iv. 20,2 Tim. i. 1, 
Heb. xi. 34, and see Fritz. Rom. 1. c. 
Vol. 1. p. 245. The active occurs, Phil. 
iva 19. 1 ΠΡ 1. ΤΩΣ ὃ. ΤΊ ταν: 17. 1π 
each case in reference to Christ. The 
simple form [here adopted by B; 17; 


148 


Lad , iol ’ a 
τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 11, 12. 


’ 7 \ rn 
1 ἐνδύσασδε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ 


Θεοῦ, πρὸς τὸ δύνασαι ὑμᾶς στῆναι πρὸς τὰς μεδοδείας τοῦ 


διαβόλου: 


Orig. Cat.] is only found once, Col. i. 
11, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605. 

καὶ ἐν τῷ κ. τ. A.| ‘and in the power 
of His might ;’ not an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν, Beng., 
but with a preservation of the proper 
sense of each substantive; see notes on 
ch. i. 19. This appended clause (καὶ) 
serves to explain and specify the princi- 
ple in which our strength was to be 
sought for, and in which it abided ; com- 
pare 2 Cor. xii. 9, ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ 
ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the familiar 
ἐν Κυρίῳ (‘in the Lord,’ our only element 
of spiritual life), see notes ch. iv. 1. 

ll. ἐνδύσ. τὴν πανοπλίαν] ‘Put 
The 
emphasis rests on this latter word (Mey.) 
as the repetition in ver. 13 still more 
clearly shows, not τοῦ Θεοῦ (Harless) ; 
‘significat debere nos ex omm parte 
instructos esse, ne quid desit,’ Calv. ; 
the term here clearly denoting not 
merely the ‘armatura,’ Vulg., but the 
‘universa armatura,’ Beza, the armor in 
all its parts, offensive and defensive ; 
‘omnia armorum genera, quibus totum 
militis corpus tegitur,’ Raphel, Annot. 
Vol. 11. 491; see Judith, xiv. 4, mavo- 
πλίας, compared with ver. 2, τὰ σκεύη τὰ 


on the whole armor, the panoply.’ 


πολεμικά, and comp. παντελὴς πανοπλία, 
Plato, Legg. ναι. 796 B. It has been 
doubted whether St. Paul is here allud- 
ing to the armor of the Hebrew or the 
Roman soldier; the latter is most proba- 
ble, but both were substantially the 
same; see esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23, a 
good Art. in Kitto, Cyclop. (‘ Arms, 
Armour’), and Winer, RWB. Art. 
‘Waffen, Vol. 11. p. 667. For a ser- 
mon on this text see Latimer, Serm. 111. 
p. 25 (ed. Corrie). Θεοῦ] ‘of God;’ 
‘que a Deo donantur,’ Zanch.; gen. of 
the source, origin, whence the arms came 
(Hartung, Casus, p. 23, notes, on 1 Thess. 


195 ὦ » » ἘΝ τοὶ - ΄ \ Ξε x / 
OTL οὐκ ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα Kal σάρκα, 


i. 6), well expressed by Theod. ἅπασιν 
διανέμει τὴν βασιλικὴν παντευχίαν. 

πρὸς τὸ δύνασϑαι κ. τ. λ.] ‘in order 
that ye may be able to stand ασαϊηβὶ ;’ 
object and purpose contemplated in the 
equipment ; compare notes on ch, iii. 4 
with those on iv. 12. The verb στῆναι, 
as Raphel (Annot. Vol. 11. p. 493) shows, 
is a military expression, ‘to stand one’s 
ground,’ opp. to φεύγειν ; see esp. Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. 11. p. 801. The second πρὸς 
in this connection has thus the meaning 
‘adversus’ (Clarom., Vulg.), with the 
implied notion of hostility (‘contra’) 
which is otherwise less usual, unless it 
is involved in the verb; see Winer, G7. 
§ 49. h, p. 361 note. τὰς μεδο- 
δείας τοῦ διαβ.} ‘the wiles of the 
Devil, — or perhaps, as more in har- 
mony with the context, ‘the stratagems” 
(Eadie; μεϑοδεῦσαί ἐστι τὸ ἀπατῆσαι καὶ 
διὰ μηχανῆς ἑλεῖν, Chrysost.); the 
plural denoting the various concrete 
forms of the abstract singular; see notes 
on Gal. vy. 20. On the form pedodias, 
which it must be admitted is here 
very strongly supported [AB'DIEGKL ; 
many mss.], see notes on ch. iy. 14. 
The only reason for not accepting it is, 
that in cases of apparent tfacism caution 
is always required in estimating the 
value of external evidence. 

12. ἡμῖν 7 
πάλ ἡ] ‘because our struggle is not,’ ‘the 
struggle in which we are engaged ;’ rea- 
son for the special mention of the pedo- 
defas τοῦ διαβόλου, ver. 11. It is com- 
monly asserted that the metaphor is not 
here fully sustained, on the ground that 
πάλη (πάλλω) is properly ‘lucta;’ see 
Plato, Legg. ναι. 795 p. As, however, 
we find πάλη δορός (Eur. Heracl. 160), 
πάλην μίξαντες λόγχης (Lycophron, Cas- 
sand, 1358), it is clear such a usage as 


«“ > » 
οτι ουκ eoTly 


Cuap. VI. 12. 


EPHESIANS. 


149 


2 \ \ \ >) , Ν Ν > , ‘ Mt / 
ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς Tas ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτο- 


the present can be justified ; indeed it is 
not unlikely that the word (an ἅπ. λεγόμ. 
in New Test., not found in LXX) was 
designedly adopted to convey the idea of 
the personal, individualizing nature of 
the encounter. The reading ὑμῖν 
adopted by Lachm. is well supported 
[BD!IFG; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., 
Aug., Boern., Syr., Goth., al.; Lucif., 
Ambrst.], but appy. less probable than 
ἡμῖν [AD®EKL; nearly all mss. ; Vulg., 
Copt., Syr.-Phil., al.; Clem., Orig., al.], 
for which it might have been easily sub- 
stituted as a more individualizing ad- 
dress. πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα] 
“against flesh and blood, mere feeble man ; 
ov πρὸς τοὺς τυχόντας ἔχομέν φησιν, οὐδὲ 
πρὸς ἀνδρώπους ὁμοιοπαδϑεῖς ἡμῖν καὶ ἰσο- 
δυνάμους, Theophyl.; comp. Polylenus, 
Strateg. 111. 11, μὴ ὡς πολεμίοις συμβάλ- 
λοντες ἀλλ᾽ ἄνϑρώποις αἷμα καὶ σάρκα 
ἔχουσι [the exhortation of Chabrias to 
his soldiers], and see notes on Gal. i. 16, 
where the formula is more fully ex- 
plained. aAAd| There is here no 
ground for translating οὐκ ἀλλά, ‘non 
tam....quam;’ comp. Glass. Philolog. 
1. 5. 22, Vol. 1. p. 420 sq. (ed. Dathe). 
The negation and affirmation are both 
absolute ; ‘non contra homines [‘ vasa 
sunt, alins utitur,’ August.], sed contra 
dzmones,’ Cornel. a Lap.; see esp. 
Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 439, where this 
formula is very satisfactorily discussed, 
and comp. Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τ. 
6. 2, and notes on 1 Thess. iv. 8. In 
those exx. where the negation cannot, 
by the nature of the case, be considered 
completely absolute, it will be observed, 
as Winer ably shows, that the negation 
has_ designedly 
which, in a faithful and forcible transla- 
tion, ought always to be preserved with- 
out any toning down; see Fritz. Mark, 
Excurs. τ᾿. p. 773 sq., Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 9, 10. 


a rhetorical coloring, 


πρὸς Tas 


&pxas| ‘against the principalities ;’ see 
esp. notes on ch. i. 23, and observe that 
the same terms which are there used to 
denote the classes and orders of good, 
are here similarly applied to evi! angels 
and spirits; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 
B, p. 355. 
pas x. τ. A.] ‘the world-rulers of this 


TOUS KOT MOKPaTo- 


darkness ;’ those who extend their world- 
wide sway oyer the present (comp. ch. 
ii. 1) spiritual and moral darkness ; 
ποίου σκότους ; apa τῆς νυκτός [compare 
Wetst.|; οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τῆς πονηρίας, 
Chrys., see ch. v. 8. Meyer rightly 
maintains (against Harless) the full 
meaning of κοσμοκρ, as not merely 
‘rulers’ (‘magnates,’ /Eth.), ‘ fairwuha- 
bandans,’ Goth. (comp. Syr.), but ‘rulers 
over the world,’ munditenentes, Tertull. 
(Mare. v. 18), κόσμος preserving its 
natural and proper force. So even in 
the second of the three exx. cited by 
Schoetgg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 790, out of 
Rabbinical writers (‘qui vocem hance, 
ΚΕ ΤΡ civitate donarunt’), 
which Harl. here adduces, — ‘ Abraham 
persecutus est quatuor JNU PWT, 50. 
reges,’— the word appears used design- 
edly with a rhetorical force; ex. 3 is 
perfectly distinct. 
later writers are cited by Elsner, Obs. 
Vol. 1. p. 219. The dogmatical mean- 
ing is correctly explained by the Greek 
commentators ; the evil spirits exercise 


sua 


Further exx. from 


dominion over the κόσμος, not in its 
mere material nature (οὐχὶ τῆς κτίσεως 
κρατοῦντες, Theophyl.), but in its ethical 
and perhaps intellectual character and 
relations (ὡς κατακρατοῦντες τῶν τὰ κοσ- 
μικὰ φρονούντων, Cicumen.), the depra- 
vation of which is expressed by τοῦ ox. 
τούτου ; see John xvi. 11, 6 
τούτου, I. ib. v. 
Πονηρῷ [see notes, ver. 16] κεῖται, 2 Cor. 
iv. 4, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, compare 
John xiy. 30. On the meanings of κόσ- 


ἄρχων τοῦ kK. 


19, 6 κ' ὅλος ἐν τῷ 


150 
pas τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ 


pos, see Bauer, de Regno Divino, 111. 2, 8 
(Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 144, 154), 
and comp. notes on Gal. iv.3. The in- 
sertion of τοῦ αἰῶνος before τούτου | Rec. 
with D®EKL; majority of mss.; Syr.- 
Phil. with an ast. ; Orig., Chrys., Theod., 
al.] seems clearly explanatory, and is 
rightly rejected by nearly all modern 
editors. 
πονηρία 5] ‘the spiritual hosts, communi- 
ties, of wickedness,’ sc. characterized by 
essential πονηρία ; gen. of ‘the character- 
istic quality’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 
115, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211) ; ἐπ- 
εἰδὴ γάρ εἰσι καὶ of ἄγγελοι πνεύματα, 


τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς 


προσέϑηκε τῆς πονηρίας, Theoph., comp. 
(Ecumen. zn loc. 
however, merely τὰ πνεύματα (Hlsn. 1, 
comp. Syr., dith.), but, in accordance 
with the force of the collective neut. ad- 
ject. (Bern. Synt. v1. 2, p. 326, Jelf, Gr. 
§ 436, 1. δ.), denote the bands, hosts, or 
confraternities of evil spirits: Winer 
and Meyer aptly cite τὰ λῃστρικά (‘rob- 
ber-hordes), Polyzn. Strateg. v. 14. 1 
ἱτὰ δοῦλα, τὰ αἰχμάλωτα, cited by Mey. 
after Bernhardy, are not fully appropri- 
ate ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 378]; comp. 
τὰ δαιμόνια, and see esp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 
3. Ὁ. obs. 8, p. 213. The gloss of Auth. 
‘spiritual wickedness,’ does not seem 
tenable, for if τὰ πνευματικὰ be taken as 
the abstract neuter (so perhaps Copt., — 
which adopts the singular πνευματικὸν) 


Τὰ πνευματικὰ are not, 


expressive of the properties or attributes 
(the ‘dynamic neut. adj.’ of Kvriiger, 
Sprachl. ὃ 43. 4.27; comp. Stier), the 
meaning must be, not ‘spiritales malig- 
nitates,’ Beza, but ‘ spiritualia nequitie,’ 
Vulg., Clarom. (comp. Goth.), ἡ. 6. 
“spiritual elements, properties, of wick- 
edness’ (see Jelf, Gr. § 436, obs. 2), — 
an abstract meaning which obviously 
does not harmonize with the context ; 
see Meyer in loc. The concrete interpre- 
tation, on the other hand, is grammati- 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 12. 


πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς 


cally correct, and far from unsuitable 
after the definite τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας. 

ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοιΞ)] ‘in the heav- 
enly regions,’ ‘in the sky or air ;’ Dobree, 
Adv. Vol. 1. p. 574: see notes ch. i. 20, 
11. θ. Here again we have at least three 
interpretations ; (a) that of Chrys. and 
the Greek commentators, who give τὰ 
ἐπουρ. an ethical reference, ‘ heavenly 
blessings ;”’ (b) that of Riick., Matth., 
Eadie, al., who refer the expression to 
the scene, the locality of the combat, 
‘the celestial spots occupied by the 
chureh;’ (6) the ancient interpr. (see 
Jerome zn loc.; comp. Tertull. Mare. v. 
18, where, however, the application is 
too limited) according to which ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπ. is to be joined with τὰ mv. τῆς πον. as 
specifying the abode or rather haunt of 
the τὰ πνευματ. ; ‘qui infra celum, 
/ith. (both). Of these (a) is opposed 
to the previous local interpretations of 
the words, and involves an explan. of ἐν 
(= ὑπέρ, Chrys., or περί, Theod., wholly 
untenable; (b) seems vague and not 
fully intelligible ; (6) on the contrary is 
both grammatically admissible (as the 
clause thus presents a single conception, 
‘supernal spirits of evil,’ see notes on 
ch. i. 19) and exegetically satisfactory. 
The haunt of the evil spirits was indi- 
rectly specified in ch. ii. 2 as being in the 
regions τοῦ ἀέρος ; here the latent oppo- 
sition, αἷμα καὶ σὰρξ (on earth) and τὰ 
πνευμ. (in supernal regions), suggests a 
word of greater antithetical force, which 
still can include the same lexical mean- 


ing; comp. Matth. vi. 26, τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ 
ovpavod. As in ch. ii. 2 there was no 


reason for limiting the term to the mere 
physical atmosphere, so here still less 
need we adopt any more precise specifi- 
cation of locality; see notes zn loc., and 
comp. generally Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. 
p. 401 sq. The repetition of πρὸς before 
each of the substantives is somewhat of 


Cuap. VI. 18, 14. 


ἐπουρανίοις. 


EPHESIANS. 


151 


δ nr » / \ fal lal 
8 διὰ τοῦτο ἀναλάβετε THY πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 


ivf fol > lel > nA an A ee 
ἵνα δυνηδῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ Kal ἅπαντα κατερ- 


γασάμενοι στῆναι. 


a rhetorical nature, designed to give em- 
phasis to the enumeration; see Winer, 
Gr. § 50. 7. obs. p. 374. 

13. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘On this account,’ 
‘wherefore ;’ since we have such power- 
ful adversaries to contend with; ἐπειδή 
φησι, χαλεποὶ οἱ ἐχϑροί, Gicum. 
ἀναλάβετε] ‘assume,’ ‘take up,’ not 
necessarily ‘to the field of battle,’ 
Conyb., but with simple local reference, 
as opposed to κατατίϑεσϑαι ; ἀναλαμβ. τὰ 
ὕπλα k.7.A. being the technical expres- 
sion : see Deut. i. 41, Jer.xxvi.3, Judith 
Σὶν ἃ; 9, δος. x. 97, x1..7, and exx.an 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 302, Elsner, Obs. 
Vol. 1. p. 231, and Wetst. zn loc. 
ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ TH πονηρᾷ] ‘in the 
evil day — of violent temptation,’ Fell, 
Coce. : ἡμέραν πονηρὰν τῆν τῆς παρατάξ- 
εως ἡμέραν καλεῖ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος 
αὐτῇ διαβόλου τὸ ὄνομα τεϑεικώς, Theod. ; 
Schoettg. compares 72" ΠΣῸΞ ‘in hora 
mala, quando periculum nobis immi- 
net,’ Hor. Hebr. ΝΟ]. τ. p. 793. The use 
of ἡμέρᾳ rather than αἰῶνι (Gal. i. 4) is 
opposed to the interpr. of Chrys., 
CEcum., Theophyl., τὸν παρόντα βίον 
φησί; and the foregoing earnest tone of 
exhortation to the idea that any consola- 
tion (scil. ro βραχὺ ἐδήλωσε, Theophyl., 
comp. Chrys.) was implied in the use of 
ἡμέρᾳ. Still more untenable is the view 
of Meyer, that St. Paul is here specify- 
ing the day when the last great Satanic 
outbreak was to take place (comp. notes 
on Gal. i. 4); the Apostle has at heart 
what he knew was much more present 
and more constantly impending ; ‘bel- 
lum est perpetuum; pugna alio die 
minus, alio die magis fervet,’ Beng. 
ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι] ‘having 
accomplished, fully done all,’ not merely 
before the fight, Beng., but as στῆναι (‘to 
stand your ground’) obviously suggests, 


14 a 5 ΄ τ ἘΠ ον ὦ 
στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν 


in and appertaining to the fight ; all things 
that the exigences of the conflict re- 
quired. The special interpr. of Gicum. 
(comp. Chrys.) κατεργασ. = καταπολεμή- 
σαντες, 1. 6. ‘having overcome all,’ Auth. 
in Marg. (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 3, 
Esdr. iy. 4), though adopted by Harl., is 
very doubtful ; for, in the first place, the 
masc. would have seemed more natural 
than the neut. ἅπαντα (Est., contr. De 
W.); and secondly, though katepya¢. 
occurs 20 times in St. Paul’s Epp., it is 
only in one of two senses, either perficere 
(‘notat rem arduam,’ Fritz.), as here, 
Rom. vii. 18, Phil. ii. 12, al., or perpe- 
trare (‘de rebus que fiunt non honeste’), 
Rom. i. 27, ii. 9, al. ; see Fritz. Rom. 11. 
9, Vol. τ. p. 109, and the numerous exx. 
cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. τι. p. 495 
sq. The concluding στῆναι is, then, not 
‘stare tanquam triumphatores’ (Zanch. 
ap. Pol. Syn., comp. even Meyer), but 
as in ver. 11, ‘to stand firm’ (the battle 
is life-long), ‘ut non cadatis aut loco 
cedere cogamini,’ Est. 

14. στῆτε οὖν] ‘Stand then,’ not as 
in ver. 13, in the fight, but, as the con- 
text obviously requires, ready for the 
fight; ‘kampffertig,’ De Wette. The 
several portions of the πανοπλία are then 
specified in regular order ; παραϑαρσύνας 
αὐτούς, λοιπὸν αὐτούς καδοπλίζει, 
Chrys. περιζωσάμενοι THY 
ὀσφύν] ‘having girt your loins about ;’ 
comp. Isaiah, xi. 


kat 


5, ἔσται δικαιοσύνῃ ἐξ: 
ὡσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀληδείᾳ εἰ- 
λημένος τὰς πλευράς. The remark of 
Holz., that the aorists are improperly 
used for presents, is wholly mistaken ; 
the different acts specified by the partici- 
ples were all completed before the soldier 
took up his position ; comp. notes on ch. 
iv. 8. It may be observed that the 
girdle was no mere ornament (Harless, 


152 


ἀληϑεία, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν ώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύ 
ηδϑείᾳ, νδυσάμ ὸ ρ ἧς νῆς; 


compare Eadie), but the first and most 
necessary part of the equipment; a o7pa- 
τιώτης ἄζωστος was, as Meyer observes, 
Inde- 
pendently of serving to keep the armor 


a very ‘contradictio in adjecto.’ 


in its proper place, it appears also, — 
except in the Homeric age, when it 
formed a part of the cuirass, and in 
later times, when ornamented ‘baltei’ 
came into use (Smith, Dict. of Antiq. 
Art. ‘Balteus ’), to have been commonly 
used to support the sword ; see plates in 
Montfaucon, L’ Antig. Expl. Vol. rv. 1, 
p. 19 sq. and Suppl. Vol. rv. p. 14 sq., 
Smith, Dict. Art. ‘Zona,’ and Winer, 
RWB. Att. ‘ Giirtel,’ Vol. 1. p. 448. 

ἐν ἀληδ εἰᾳ] ‘with truth, as the girdle 
which bound all together, and served to 
make the Christian soldier expedite and 
unencumbered for the fight; é being 
instrumental, or perhaps rather semi- 
local, with a ref. to the cincture and 
equipment; see Isaiah xi. 5 quoted 
above, Psalm Ixiv. 7, περιεζωσμένος ἐν 
δυναστείᾳ, and comp. Green, Gramm. p. 
289. It has been doubted (see Gicumen. 
in loc.) whether by ἀλήϑεια is meant 
what is termed objective truth (ἀλήϑεια 
δογμάτων Cicum. 1), 1. 6. ‘the orthodox 
profession of the Gospel’ (Hamm. on 
Luke, xii. 35), or subjective truth; the 
latter is most probable, provided it is 
not unduly limited to mere ‘truthful- 
ness’ (Chrysost. 1) or sincerity (Calv., 
Olsh.). It must be taken in its widest 
sense ἀλήϑ. ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ch. iv. 21, the 
inward practical acknowledgment of the 
truth as it is in Him; δύνῃ δὲ ὡς πρὸς 
Xp. 
(Ecum.; comp. Reuss, Thél. Chret. rv. 
16, Vol. 11. p. 169. 
σύνη 5] ‘of righteousness ;’ gen. of appo- 
sition or identity ; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, 
p- 470, comp. Scheuerl. Synt, § 12. 1, p. 
82; so similarly in regard of sentiment, 


τὸν νοῆσαι, τὸν ὄντως ἀλήϑειαν, 


τῆς δικαιο- 
) 


Isaiah, lix. 17, καὶ ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην 


E P-HES PANS 


Cuap. VI. 15. 


15 . 


Kal 


ὡς ϑώρακα, Wisdom, v. 19, ἐνδύσεται 
This δικαιοσύνη is 
not ‘righteousness’ in its deeper scrip- 
tural sense, 5011, by faith in Christ (Har- 
less), as πίστις is mentioned indepen- 
dently in ver. 16, but rather Christian 
moral rectitude (Meyer, Olsh., Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11.1. 2, p. 190; τὸν καϑολικὸν καὶ 
ἐνάρετον βίον, Chrys.), or, more correctly 
speaking, the righteousness which is the 
result of the renovation of the heart by 
the Holy Spirit; see Waterl. Regen. Vol. 
Iv. p. 434. Eadie presses the article, 
but without grammatical grounds; its 
insertion is merely due to the common 
principle of correlation ; see Middl. Art. 
TR τ 0. 5.68 

15. ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς Todas] 
‘having shod your feet,’ ‘calceati pedes,’ 
Clarom., Vulg. It does not seem neces- 
sary to refer this specially to the Roman 
‘ealiga’ (Mey.; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 
vi. 1. 8), as the reference to the Roman 
soldier, though probable, is not certain ; 
any strong military sandal (Heb. -4s>, 
Isaiah ix. 4, see Gesen. Lex. s. v.) is 
perhaps all that is imphed; compare 
Lydus, Synt. Sacr. 111. 2, p. 46 sq. 
ἐν ἑτοιμασίᾳ) ‘with the readiness ;’ 


ϑώρακα δικαιοσύνην. 


not ‘in preeparationem,’ Clarom, but ‘in 
preeparatione,’ Amit., Copt.; ἐν being 
instrumental, or semi-local, as in ver, 
14. The somewhat peculiar form ἕτοι- 
facia, used principally in the LXX and 
eccl. writers, denotes properly ‘ prepara- 
tion’ in an active sense (Wisdom xiil. 
12, érom. τροφῆς, Mart. Polye. § 18, 
ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμ.), then ‘a state of 
readiness,’ whether outwardly consid- 
ered (Joseph. Antig. x. 1. 2, ἵππους εἰς 
ἕτοιμ. παρέχεϊν) or inwardly estimated 
(Hippoer. de Dee. Hubitu. Vols 1. p. 74, 
ed. Kiihn ; compare Psalm ix. 38, érom. 
καρδίας, 7. 6. τὸ ἐμπαράσκευον, Chrys.), 
and thence by a conceivable transition 
(esp. as 5°27 admits both meanings, sce 


Cuapr. VI. 16. 


EPHESIANS. 


159 


e / \ ἐᾷ > e 7 lo) b} / lal 3 , 
ὑποδησάμενοι τους πόδας εν ετούμασιᾳ του εὐαγγελίου Τῆς εἰρηνὴς 


bie lal ’ , \ \ an ee ΄ 
* ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀναλαβόντες τὸν δυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως, ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσδε 


Gesen. Ler. s. y.), ‘something fixed, 
settled * (compare Theodot. Prov. iy. 18, 
ἑτοιμασία ἡμέρας = σταϑερὰ μεσημβρία), 
and further even ‘a basis, a foundation,’ 
Heb. y4573 (Dan. xi. 7, τῆς ῥίζης αὐτῆς, 
τῆς ἑτοιμασίας αὐτοῦ, compare Esra ii. 
14). This last 
meaning, however, may possibly have 
originated from a misconception of the 
translator (see Holzh. and Meyer in loc.), 
but at any rate is very inappropriate in 
this place. There is then no reason to 
depart from the more correct meaning, 
πῶ» 
‘readiness,’ ‘ preparedness ἢ (σι.5....α.}9 
Syr., ‘manviba,’ Goth.), not, however, 
ὥστε ἑτοίμους εἶναι πρὸς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 
(Chrys.), but, as the context and meta- 
phor suggest, ‘ad militiam, impedimentis 
omnibus soluti,’ Calvy. 


68, Psalm 1xxxviii. 


TOU 
evayy. τῆς εἰρήνη 9] ‘of the Gospel 
of peace ;’ 501]. caused by the ebayy. τῆς 
εἰρήνης ; the first gen. εὐαγγελίου being 
that of the source or agent (see notes on 1 
Thess. i. 6, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126), 
the second, εἰρήνης, that of the purport 
and contents ; comp. ch. i. 13, τὸ εὐαγγέλ. 
τῆς σωτηρίας, where see notes, and Bern- 
hardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161. The sum 
and substance of the Gospel was ἡ 
εἰρήνη, Peace, not with one another 
merely, but with God (Est.), a peace that 
can only be enjoyed and secured if we 
war against His enemies ; ἂν τῷ διαβόλῳ 
πολεμῶμεν eipnvevouey πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 
Chrys. On the different terms with 
which evayy. is associated in the N. T., 
see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 8, Vol. 11. 
p- 81. 

16. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν] ‘in addition to all ;’ 
not, with local ref., ‘super omnibus, quee- 
cumque induistis,’ Beng. (comp. Goth. 
‘ufar all’), nor, with ethical ref., ‘above 
all,’ Auth.,— but simply in ref. to the 


Jast accompaniment; comp. Luke iii. 20, 
9 


προσέϑηκε τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι, and sce Winer, 
Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 850. Eadie cites Col. 
iil. 14, ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, but neither this 
passage nor Luke xvi. 26 are strictly 
similar, as the addition of τούτοις implies 
a reference to what has preceded, while 
ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is general and unrestricted, 
and more nearly approaches a ‘formula 
concludendi ; see Harless, and exx. col- 
lected by Wetst. on Luke xvi. 26. In 
both the force of ἐπὶ is the same, ‘ acces- 
sion,’ ‘superaddition ;’ comp. Donalds. 
Gr. § 483. aa. The reading ἐν 
πᾶσιν, adopted by Lachm., with B; a 
few mss; Clarom.; Vulgate (appy.) ; 
Method., Greg.-Naz.; al., has not sufti- 
cient external support, and may have 
been a correction for the ambiguous ἐπί. 
τὸν ϑυρεόν! ‘the shield,’ ‘scutum,’ 
Clarom., Vulg. The term Supeds, as its 
derivation suggests, is properly anything, 
‘quod vicem janue prstat’ (Homer, 
Od. 1x. 240, 313, 340), thence in later 
writers (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 366) a 
large oblong or oval shield (οἷά tis Stipa 
φυλάττων τὸ σῶμα, Theophyl.), differing 
both in form and dimensions from the 
round and lighter ἀσπίς (‘clypeus’); see 
esp. Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 2, comp. Lips. 
de Milit. Rom. 111. 2, and exx. in Kypke, 
Elsner, and Alberti zn loc. ΠῚ]. doubts 
whether ϑυρεὸς was intentionally used 
instead of ἀσπίς, and cites the very sim- 
ilar passage, Wisdom v. 20, λήψεται 
ἀσπίδα ὁσιότητα; it is not, however, 
improbable that in the time of St. Paul 
(perhaps 150 years later) the distinction 
had become more commonly recognized ; 
see Plutarch, Plamin. § 12. 
miatews| ‘of faith; appositional gen. 
similar to δικαιοσύνης, ver. 14. 
ᾧ δυνήσεσϑ εἸ ‘with which ye will be 
able ;’ scil. as protected by and under 
cover of which (comp. ver. 16), or, with 
a still more definite instrumental force 


THS 


> 
εν 


154 


, \ , fod a \ 7 , 
πάντα Ta βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι: 


(Goth., Arm.), as specifying the defen- 
sive implement by which the extinction 
of the fire-tipped darts will be facilitated 
and effected ; 7 πίστις οὖν ταῦτα σβέννυ- 
σιν, Theoph. The future must not be 
unduly pressed (Mey.) ; it points simply 
and generally to the time of the contest, 
whenever that might be: the future is 
only ‘a conditioned present ; see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 877. 

τοῦ Tovnpod| ‘the wicked One ;’ ‘ne- 
quissimi,’ Clarom., Vulg.; not ‘evil,’ τὸ 
πονηρόν, but in accordance with the indi- 
vidualizing and personal nature of the 
conflict which the context so forcibly de- 
picts, — the Devil; μόνον ἐκεῖνος πονηρὸς 
κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν λέγεται, Chrys. de Diab. 11. 
Vol. 11. p. 309 (ed. Ben. 1834), comp. 2 
Thess. iii. 3, 1 John y. 18, probably 
Matth. v. 37, John xvii. 15, al., and see 
Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 807, 
notes on 1 Thess. J. c., and on the conflict 
generally, the instructive remarks of 
Mayer, Hist. Diab. § 7, p. 681 sq. comp. 
also Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. 
p- 226 sq. τὰ βέλη τὰ 
memup.| ‘the fire-tipt, or fiery darts ;’ 
the addition of the epithet serving to 
mark the fell nature of the attack, and 
to warn the combatant ; πεπ. δὲ αὐτὰ κέκ- 
ληκεν διεγείρων τοὺς στρατιώτας, καὶ κελ- 
εύὐων ἀσφαλῶς περιφράττεσϑαι, Theodoret. 
Allusion is here distinctly made to the 
πυρφόροι ὀϊστοί, arrows, darts, etc., tipped 
with some imflammable substance, which 
were used both by the Hebrews (Psalm 
vii. 14), Greeks (Herodotus, vir. 52, 
Thucyd. 11. 75, Arrian, Alex. 11. 18), 
and Romans (‘ malleoli,’ Cicero pro Mi- 
lone, 24: ‘falarice,’ Livy xx1. 8, were 
much larger), in sieges, or, under certain 
circumstances, against the enemy in the 
field; see Vegetius,de Re Mil. αν. 18, 
Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Bogen,’ Vol. 1. p. 
190. Any reference to ‘ poisoned ’ 
darts (Hamm. al.) is not in accordance 


EPHESIANS. 


Οσμαρ. ΥἹ. 17. 


17 Ἅ \ 
Kal τὴν 


with the meaning and tense of the part. 
πεπυρωμένα. It may be remarked that 
the art. is not found in BD!FG, and is 
rejected by Lachm.; in which case πεπυρ. 
will become a ‘tertiary’ predicate, and 
must be translated ‘fire-tipt as they 
are,’ see esp. Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq., 
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 20, 1. obs. p. 
122. It seems, however, much more 
probable that the art. was omitted by an 
oversight, than that the transcriber felt 
any grammatical difficulty, and sought 
to remedy it by insertion. 
“to quench.’ 


σβέσαι) 
It seems too much to say 
That 
the use of σβέσαι was suggested by 


with Caly., ‘improprie loquitur.’ 


πεπυρ. is not improbable; as, however, 
it is certain that the larger shields, which 
for lightness were made of wood, were 
covered with hides (μοσχείῳ δέρματι, 
Polyb. Hist. v1. 23. 3, Lips. de Milit. 
111. 2) and similar materials designed to 
prevent the full effect of the βέλη πεπυρ., 
the particular verb cannot in any way be 
considered here as inappropriate ; comp. 
Arrian, Alex, 11. 18. 

17. καὶ τὴν K.7.A.] Meyer rightly 
objects to the punctuation of ZLachm. 
and Tisch.: a comma, or perhaps rather 
a colon (Wordsw.), is here far more suit- 
able than a period. We have here only 
one of St. Paul’s rapid transitions from 
the participial structure to that of the 
finite verb ; see Col.i. 6, and notes ch. i. 
20. δέξα σὃ εἸ ‘receive, as from 
Him who furnishes the armor (ver. 13), 
and whose Spirit puts in our hands the 
sword ; ‘accipite, oblatam a Domino,’ 
Beng. The verb is omitted by D! 
FG; Clarom.; Cypr., Tertull., al., and 
converted into δέξασϑαι by Matth. with 
AD? (E?) KL; mss.; Cypr. (1), — but 
in neither case on sufficient external evi- 
dence. τοῦ σωτηρίου) ‘of sal- 
vation ;’ gen. of apposition, as in ver. 14, 
16. The use of this abstract neuter is, 


CoaPrrvV E18: 


EPHESIANS. 


155 


περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασϑε, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ Πνεύ- 


ματος, ὅ ἐστι ῥῆμα Θεοῦ: 


* διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως 


a \ ’ \ 
προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ ἀγρυπ- 


with the exception of this place, confined 
to St. Luke (see Luke ii. 80, iii. 6, Acts 
XXvili. 28), though sufficiently common 
in the LXX; compare Isaiah lix. 17, 
meptkep. σωτηρίου, --- a passage to which 
its present occurrence may perhaps be 
referred. There is no ground for sup- 
posing that τοῦ owt. is masculine (‘salu- 
taris, sc. Christi,’ Beng.), either here or 
Acts /. c., nor can we say with Mey. that 
τὸ σωτήριον is ‘any ideal possession :’ 
in 1 Thess. vy. 8, the περικεφαλαία is the 
ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας, in the present case there 
is no such limitation. Salvation in 
Christ, as Harl. remarks, forms the sub- 
ject of faith; in faith (by grace, ch. ii. 5) 
it is apprehended, and becomes even, in a 
certain sense, a present possession ; see 
notes, ch. ii. 8. τοῦ Mvevuaros| 
‘of the Spirit ;’ sc. given by, supplied by 
the Spirit; the gen. of the source or 
origin, as in verse 13, τὴν πανοπλ. τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. The gen. is clearly not apposi- 
tional (Cicum. 1., Theophyl. 1., and even 
Harl., Olsh.), as the explanatory clause 
would thus be wholly out of place. Still 
less probable is a gen. of quality, ἡ μά- 
χαιρα πνευματική (Chrys. 2), or a simple 
gen. of possession, in reference to the 
τιμωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια (Sever. ap. Cram. 
Cat.) of the Spirit, both of which seem 
at variance with the general tenor of the 
passage, which represents the ‘arma- 
tura’ as furnished to us by God. Thus 
then it is from the Spirit that we receive 
the sword, that sword being the Word 
of God, the Gospel (ver. 15), which is 
the δύναμις Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 16,1 Cor. i. 
18) to every one who believeth; comp. 
Heb. iv. 12. 

18. διὰ πάσης κ.τ.λ.} ‘with all 
(every form of) prayer and supplication 
praying ;’ participial clause expressive 
of the manner and accompaniments of 


the action, dependent on the principal 
imperative στῆτε οὖν (Mey.), not on the 
subordinate aor. imper. δέξασϑε, which is 
only a variation of the participial struc- 
ture, and with which the idea of dura- 
tion expressed in πάσης and παντὶ καιρῷ 
would not be consistent. The seeming 
tautology and an imaginary logical difti- 
culty in προσεύχεσϑαι διὰ πάσης προσ. ἐν 
παντὶ καιρῷ have induced Mey. to discon- 
nect διὰ πάσης k.7.A. and προσευχόμενοι. 
This, though not inconsistent with the 
use of διὰ (‘conditio in qua locatus ali- 
quid facias,’ Fritz. Rom. ii. 27, Vol. τ. p. 
138), is still neither necessary nor satis- 
factory: διὰ πάσης κ. τ. A. simply and 
correctly denotes the earnest (because 
varied) character of the prayer (see 
Theophyl.) ; ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, the con- 
stancy of it (ἐνδελεχῶς, Theod., comp. 
Luke xviii. 1, 1 Thess. v. 17, 2 Thess. i. 
11); ἐν Πνεύματι (see infra), the holy 
sphere of it. Conyb. (comp. Syr., but 
not /&th., Syr.-Phil.) translates the part. 
as a simple imperat., and makes ver. 18 
the beginning of a new paragraph ; this, 
however, cannot be justified ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 45. 6, p. 313. It has been 
doubted whether there is here any exact 


distinction between προσευχὴ (τ 3Ξ) and 


δέησις (2mm). Chrys. and Theodoret 
on 1 Tim. ii. 1 explain προσ. as αἴτησις 
ayasay (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. 1) 
δέησ. as ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία 
(so Grot., as ἀπὸ τοῦ δεοῦς, but see 2 
Cor. i. 11) ; comp. Origen, de Orat. § 33, 
Vol. xvi1. p. 292 (ed. Lomm.). Alii 
alia. The most natural and obvious dis- 
tinction is that adopted by nearly all re- 
cent commentators, viz. that προσευχὴ is 
a ‘vocabulum sacrum’ (see Harl.) de- 
noting ‘prayer’ in general, precatio, 5é- 
nots, a vocabulum commune,’ denoting 
a special character or form of it, ‘pe- 


J 


150 EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 19. 


r \ Ν nr 
voovtes ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει Kal δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν 


if id 19 \ δ \ > la) σ΄ ὃ an , BJ > / Lo) 
aylLov, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, Wa μοι δοδῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ 


tition,’ rogatio; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, 
Vol. 11. p. 372, and notes on 1 Tim. 1. c. 
ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ] ‘in every season.’ 
There is no necessity to restrict this to 
‘every fitting season,’ Eadie; the mind 
of prayer (τὸ ὁμιλεῖν τῷ Θεῷ, Theophyl. 
on 1 Thess. ν. 17) is alluded to as much 
as the outward act; see Alford on Luke 
Xvill. 1. ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘in the 
Spirit ;’ certainly not the human spirit 
(‘cum devoto cordis etfectu,’ Est.), nor 
as in contrast to βαττολογεῖν (Chrys.), 
but, the Holy Spirit (Jude 20), ὧν whose 
blessed and indwelling influence, and by 
whose merciful aid we are enabled to 
pray (Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), yea, and 
who Himself intercedes for us (Rom. 
viii. 26). eis αὐτό] ‘for this,’ 
thereunto; scil. τὸ προσεύχεσϑαι ἐν παντὶ 
καιρῷ ἐν Πνεύματι. The reference is 
obviously not to what follows (Holzh.), 
but to what precedes. It was ‘for this’ 
(scarcely more than ‘in respect of this,’ 
Mey.) that the Ephesians were to be 
watchful; not that αἰΐ should abide in 
continual prayer (Olsh., Harl.), for the 
prayer for the Apostle (ver. 19) is to be 
for a different spiritual grace, but that 
they themselves might have that grace 
(‘ut quotidie oretis,’ Est.), and exercise 
it in general, persistent, and appropriate 
supplications for all saints. The 
addition of τοῦτο after αὐτὸ [Rec. with 
D3EKL; mss.; Chrys.-text, Theod., 
al.] is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., 
al., with AB (DIFG; αὐτὸν) ; Clarom., 
Vulg., Copt., al., as a mere explanatory 
addition : ‘avrds szepius dicitur de eo de 
quo cummaxime sermo est,’ Kiihner 
Xen. Mem. 111. 10, 14, comp. Matth. Gr. 
§ 469. 7. 
προσκαρτ. k. τ. A.| ‘watching in all 
perseverance and supplication,’ ‘im omni 
instantid et observatione,’ Vulg.; sup- 
plementary clause, specifying a particu- 


ἀγρυπ. ἐν πάσῃ 


lar accompaniment to their prayer and 
watchfulness in regard to themselves, 
and a particular phase and aspect which 
it was to assume; ‘in praying for them- 
selves, they were uniformly to blend 
petitions for all the saints,’ Eadie ; com- 
pare Col. iv. 2, γρηγοροῦντες ev αὐτῇ 
(προσευχῇ) ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, Where ἐν evx. 
denotes the attendant, concomitant act, 
one of the forms which προσευχὴ was to 
assume. The two substantives 
προσκαρτ. καὶ δεήσ., though not merely 
equivalent to ‘precantes sedulo’ (Syr. 
comp. /Eth.), still practically amount to 
a ‘hendiadys.’ According to the regu- 
lar rule, the substantive which contains 
the ‘accidens’ ought to follow rather 
than precede (see Winer, de Hypall. et 
Hendiad. p. 19), still here προσκ. so 
clearly receives its explanation from καὶ 
δεήσει, that the expression, though not a 
strict and grammatical, is yet a virtual, 
or what might be termed a contextual ἐν 
διὰ δυοῖν ; see esp. Fritz. Matth. p. 857. 
On προσκαρτ. comp. notes on Col. iv. 2. 
19. καί] ‘and, to add a particular 
ease ;’ on this use of καὶ in appending a 
special example to a general classifica- 
tion, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388, 
notes on ch. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 21. 
ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] ‘for me,’ ‘in behalf of me.’ 
Eadie (after Harl.) endeavors to trace a 
distinction between ὑπὲρ here, and περὶ 
ver. 18, as if the former was more spe- 
cial and individualizing, the latter more 
general and indefinite ; ‘sorgt wn Alle, 
auch fir mich,’ Harl. This, in the pres- 
ent case, where the two prepp. are so 
contiguous, is plausible, but, as a general 
rule, little more can be said than that 
ὑπὲρ in its ethical sense perhaps retains 
some stronger trace of its local meaning 
than περί; see notes on Gal. i. 4, on 
Phil. i. 7, and compare Kriiger, Sprachl. 


§ 08, 28. 3. ἵνα μοι δοδῇ 


- 


Cnap. VI. 20. 


EPHESIANS. 


157 


+ , la) 
στόματός μου ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι TO μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 


20 ἐς \ ia 7 > e ΄ 4 > SA 4 ΄ ς 
ὑπέρ οὐ πρεσβεύω ἐν αλύσει, WA ἐν αὕτῳ παρρησιάσωμαι ὡς 


δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 


Adbyos| ‘that there may be given to me ;’ 
particular object of the ἀγρυπν. ἐν mpoo- 
kapt., with an included reference to the 
subject of the prayer; comp. notes on 
ch. i. 17. The 6097, as its position 
seems to indicate, is emphatic : it was a 
special gift of God, and felt to be so by 
the Apostle, ‘non nitebatur Paulus ha- 
bitu suo,’ Beng. The reading of Rec., 
δοϑείη (which rests only on the authority 
of a few cursive mss.), would give the 
purpose a more subjective reference, and 
represent the feeling of a more dependent 
realization ; comp. ch. i. 17, and see esp. 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 622, Herm. 
Soph. Elect. 57. ἐν ἀνοίξει 
στόμ.] ‘in the opening of my mouth ; 
act in which and occasion at which the 
gift was to be realized, the connection 
clearly being with the preceding (Syr., 
Chrysost., al.), not with the following 
words (Auth., Kypke), and the meaning 
not ‘ad apertionem,’ 7. 6. ‘ut os aperiam’ 
(Beza), or, in passive reference to him- 
self, and active to God, ‘ut Deus aperiat 
os meum’ (comp. Aith.), 7. e. ‘that my 
mouth may be opened’ (a Lap., Olsh. ; 
comp. Psalm 1. 17), but simply ‘in the 
opening of my mouth’ (‘occasione 
data,’ Grot.), ‘dum os aperio,’ Est.; so 
Mey., Eadie, al.; see esp. Fritz. Dissert. 
11. ad 2 Cor. p. 99 sq. The expres- 
sion ἀνοίγειν στόμα may be briefly no- 
ticed. When not specially modified or 
explained by the context (comp. 2 Cor. 
vi. 11), it does not, on the one hand, 
appear to have any prelusive reference 
to the nature or quality of the discourse 
(οὐκ ἄρα ἐμελέτα ἅπερ ἔλεγεν, Chysost., 
‘ore semiclauso proferuntur ambigua,’ 
Calv.), nor, on the other, is to be consid- 
ered as merely graphic and unemphatic 
(Fritz. loc. cit., and on Matth. v. 2), but 
nearly always appears to specify the 


solemnity of the act and the occasion ; 
compare Matth. v. 2, Job ili. 1, Dan. x. 
16, Acts viii. 35, and appy. xviii. 14 [1 
was a grave answer before a tribunal], 
and see Tholuck, Bergpr. p. 60 sq. 

ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι] ‘with bold- 
ness (of speech) to make known,’ ‘cum 
fiducia, notum facere,’ Clarom., Vulg. ; 
specification of the result contemplated 
in the gift (‘ut mihi contingat Adyos, 
inde autem nascatur τὸ ἐν app. γνωρί- 
oa,’ Fritz. ad 2 Cor. p. 100), and of the 
spirit by which it was to be marked. 
As ἐν ἀνοιξ. Tod στόμ. hinted at the sol- 
emn and responsible nature οἵ the act, 
so ἐν mapp. refers qualitatively to the 
character and spirit of the preaching ; 
Sdpoos καὶ λόγου χορηγίαν ἵνα κατὰ τὸν 
ϑεῖον λύγον πληρώσω τὸν δρόμον, Theo- 
doret. On the meaning οἵ παῤῥησία, see 
notes on 1 Tim. iii. 13. τὸ μυστ. 
τοῦ εὐαγγελ.] ‘the mystery of the Gos- 
pel.’ The gen. is somewhat different to 
τὸ μυστήρ. τοῦ ϑελήματος, ch. i. 9; there 
it was ‘the mystery in the matter of, 
concerning the SéAnua,’— gen. objecti ; 
here it is rather ‘the mystery which the 
εὐαγγέλ. has, involves,’ — gen. subjecti. 
The distinction between these two forms 
of gen. is briefly but ably stated by 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7. On the mean- 
ing of μυστήριον, comp. notes on ch. v. 
32. The concluding words τοῦ 
εὐαγγελ. are omitted by BFG; Boern. ; 
Tert., Ambrst., and bracketed by Lach- 
mann, but rightly retained by Tvsch., 
Alf., Wordsw. on distinctly preponderat- 
ing evidence. 

20. ὑπὲρ οὗ] ‘in commodum cujus,’ 
‘to preach which.’ The reference of οὗ 
is doubtful ; it can, however, scarcely be 
‘to the preceding clause,’ Eadie; for as 
this involves two moments of thought, 
ἐν παῤῥ. and -yvwp., and as αὐτὸ would 


108 


I have sent Tychicus to 
tell you of my state and to 
comfort you, 


certainly seem to have the same refer- 
ence as 6, there would be an inevitable 
tautology in ἐν αὐτῷ (scil. τὸ ἐν Trapp. 
κι 7. A+) παῤῥησιάσωμαι. The reference 
must then be either simply to τὸ εὐαγγέλ. 
(Harl.) or more probably to τὸ μυστ. 
τοῦ evayyeA. (Mey.), as this was what 
the Apostle ἐγνώρισεν, and in the matter 
of which he prayed for the grace of παῤ- 
ῥησία. πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει) 
‘Tam an ambassador in a chain,’ ‘in ca- 


tend,’ Clarom., Vulg., but JAXzas 
Ὁ [4 --Ξ 


[in caten’s] Syr., and similarly Copt., 
Goth., Arm. [gabdnok, no sing.|; ἃ 
noticeable and appy. designedly antitheti- 
cal collocation, ‘I am an ambassador — 
in chains;’ ‘alias legati jure gentium 
sancti et inviolabiles,’ Wetst., compare 
Theoph. It seems doubtful whether 
any historical allusion to a ‘custodia 
militaris’ (Beza, Grot.; on which see 
esp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 394, note) is 
actually involved in the present use of 
the singular; comp. Acts xxviii. 20, 2 
Tim. i. 16, Joseph. Antig. xviii. 6, 10, 
and see Paley, Hor. Paul. v1. 5, Wie- 
seler, Synops. p. 420. As the singular 
is not conclusive, being often used, es- 
pecially in the case of material objects, 
in a collective sense (see Kriiger, Sprach. 
ὃ 44. 1, 1, Bernhardy, Synt. 11.1, p. 58), 
and as the use of the word in St. Paul’s 
Epp. (here and 2 Tim. i. 16) is confined 
to the singular, it seems uncritical to 
press the allusion, though it still may be 
regarded as by no means improbable : 
ἅλυσις is used in the singular (eis τὴν 
ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν), but with the article 
and in a more general sense, in Polyb. 
Tish XG δας «16. Ὁ, ἵνα 
κι τ. λ.} ‘in order that I may speak boldly ;’ 
second purpose and object of the ἀγρυπν. 
K. τ. A., ver. 18. There seems no rea- 
son to depart from the ordinary interpr. ; 
the second ἵνα x. τ. A. is not dependent 


EPHESIANS. 


Guar. Vino 


92] ¢ \ IDA \ ig o \ ΕΣ 5 , r 
Iva δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ Kat ἐμέ, τί 


on πρεσβ. ἐν ἁλύσει (Beng.), nor subor- 
dinate to {Harl.), but codrdinate with ἵνα 
5087 (comp. Rom. vii. 13, Gal. iii. 14), 
and involves no tautology. The first of 
the two final sentences relates to the gift 
of utterance and app. generally, the 
second, to the gift of a conditioned 
mapp., — 5011. ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. 

ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in it, ‘therein;’ scil. ἐν τῷ 
μυστ. τοῦ εὐαγγελ. ---- ‘occupied with it, 
engaged in preaching it.’ Ἔν here 
marks, not so much the (official) sphere 
in Which (see Rom. i. 9, λατρεύω ἐν εὐ- 
ayyeAlw), as the substratum on which 
the παῤῥησία was to be displayed and 
exercised; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 
12.6, and notes on Gal. i. 23. It can 
scarcely denote the source or ground of 
the παῤῥ.. Harl.; for, as 1 Thess. 11. 2, 
ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεδϑα ἐν τῷ Θεῷ x. τ. A. (cited 
by Harless) clearly shows, God was the 
source and causal sphere of the παρῤῥ. 
(see notes zn loc.) ; the Gospel (here ‘the 
mystery of the Gosp.’) the object in 
which and about which it was to be 
manifested : see exx. in Bernhardy, Synt. 
v. 8. b, p. 212. 

21. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμ.] ‘ But 
in order that ye also may know ;’ transi- 
tion by means of the δὲ μεταβατικόν, 
see notes on Gal. i. 11, to the last and 
valedictory portion of the Epistle. In 
the words καὶ ὑμεῖς the καὶ is certainly 
something more than a mere ‘particle 
of transition’ (Eadie, Ruck.). It indis- 
putably refers to others besides the Ephe- 
sians, but who they were cannot be satis- 
factorily determined. If the Epistle to 
the Colossians was written first, καὶ 
might point to the Colossians (Harl , 
Einleit. p. 60, Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. 
1841, p. 453, Meyer, Hinleit. p. 17, Wie- 
seler, Synops. p. 432), but as the priority 
of that Ep., though by no means improb- 
able both from internal (Neander, Plant- 
ing, Vol.1, p. 339 Bohn, comp. Schleierm. 


Cuap. VI. 99, 


EPHESIANS. 


159 


7 ΄’΄ δ A / UA € 3 \ , \ \ 

πράσσω, πάντα ὑμῖν γνωρίσει Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ 
΄ 99 ¢ , rn ᾽ \ a 

πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ, “ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, 


uj lal “ “ 
ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. 


Stud. τι. Krit. 1832, p. 500) and perhaps 
external considerations (see Wieseler, 
Syn. p. 450 sq.), is still very doubtful 
(see Credner, Finleit. § 157, Reuss, 
Gesch. des N. T. § 119), this seems all 
that can be said, — that the use of καὶ is 
certainly noticeable, and not to be ex- 
plained away, and that though per se it 
cannot safely be relied upon as an argu- 
ment in favor of the priority of the Ep. 
to the Colossians, it still, on that hypoth- 
esis, admits of an easy and natural ex- 
planation. The article by Wiggers, 
above referred to, though in several 
points far from conclusive, deserves 
perusal. The reading is somewhat 
doubtful: ZLachm. adopts the order καὶ 
ὑμεῖς εἰδ. with ADEFG (AD'FG id.) ; 
Clarom., Vulg., al. ; Theod., Lat. Ff.,— 
but appy. with less probability than the 
text, which is found in BKL; great 
majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Basm. ; 
Chrys., Dam., Jerome, al., and adopted 
by Tisch., and most recent editors. 

τί πράσσω] ‘how 7 fure;’ not ‘quid 
(in carcere) agam’ (Wolf), but simply 
‘quid agam,’ Clarom., Vulg., — in 
simple explanation of τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ; see 
Arrian, E’pict. τ. 19, τί πράσσει Φηλικίων, 
lian, Var. Hist. 11. 35, ἥρετο, τί πράτ- 
τοι [ὃ ὑπὸ ἀσϑενείας καταληφδϑ είς], comp. 
Hor. Sat.1.9.4. Illustrations of τὰ κατ᾽ 
ἐμέ, ‘res meas’ (Phil. i. 12, Col. iv. 7), 
are cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234: 
see Wetst. and Kypke. ΤύχικοΞϑ) 
Not Τυχικός ( Griesb.. Tisch. ed. 7), see Wi- 
ner, ΟὟ. ὃ 6,p.49. Tychicus was an ’Agi- 
avds, and is mentioned Acts xx. 4, Col. 
Lye ὦ. 2) Dimiviv. 12, Tit. iii. 12. Tradi- 
tion represents him as afterwards bishop 
of Chalcedon in Bithynia, of Colophon, or 
of Neapolis in Cyprus; see Acta Sanet. 
April 29, Vol. 111. p. 613. The 
order γνωρίσει ὑμῖν, though found in BD 


EFG ; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm. Aug., 
Boern., Goth., al; Ambrst. (Lachm.), is 
rightly reversed by Tisch., Alf., Wordsw., 
on fair evidence [AKL ; nearly all mss. ; 
Vulg. (Amit., Demid , — not Fuld), 
Syr.-Phil., ἃ]. ; Chrys., Theod., al.], be- 
ing not unlikely a conformation to Col. 
i πιστό 5] ‘faithful, ‘trusty ;’ 
not ἀξιόπιστος, scil. οὐδὲν ψεύσεται ἀλλὰ 
πάντα ἀληϑεύσει, Chrys., Beng. ; for, as 
Mey. remarks, he was probably known 
to the Ephesians (comp. Acts xx. 4), 
though probably not to the Colossians. 

διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘minister in the 
Lord;’ Christ was the sphere of his 
ministrations, Christ’s Spirit animated 
and actuated his labors. It does not 
seem necessary to refer the term διάκονος 
to any special (‘sacra ordinatione dia- 
conum fuisse,’ Est.), or any general of- 
fice (‘qui Evangelio navat operam,’ 
Grot.) in relation to the Gospel, but 
merely in reference to his services to St. 
Paul; see Col. iv. 7, πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ 
σύνδουλος, where, as Meyer and De W. 
observe, the latter term is intended to 
heighten and dignify the former ; comp. 


» 


also 2 Tim. iv. 7. 


heedie 


22.0v ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾷ 5] ‘whom 
T have sent to you ;’ not ‘Isend’ ( Words.) 
—which, though not appy. inconsistent 
with the usage of the New Testament 
(see Winer, Gir. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249), does 
not seem accordant with the probable 
circumstances. Tychicus appears to 
have been sent with Onesimus to Colos- 
se on a special mission (Col. iv. 8), of 
which the Apostle availed himself so far 
as to send this letter by him; this mis- 
sion, however, the Apostle naturally re- 
gards as‘an act belonging to the past, 
and so probably uses ἔπεμψα in its ordi- 
nary sense. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] 
‘for this very purpose, and no other,’ 


100 


Peace be to the brethren, 
and grace to all true Chris- 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 28,24. 


ἢ Εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ 


d , 5. ἃ a \ \ / 5) a 
tians. πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ 
a na 94 «ς 7 \ / “ ’ Ne 
ριστοῦ. Η χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων 
viz, in reference to, and further ex- 18, Vol. 11. p. 200 sq. τοῖς 


plained by what follows; not ‘for the 
same purpose,’ Auth.; comp. Phil. 1. 28, 
Col. iv. 8, and notes in loc. The prepo- 
sition is sometimes omitted; see Plat. 
Sympos. 204 a, and Stalb. in loc. ; comp. 
ib. Legg. 111. 686 c, Protag. 310 Ε. 

ἵνα γνῶτε κ. τ. A.| ‘in order that ye 
may know the things concerning us ;’ obvi- 
ously similar in meaning to εἰδῆτε τὰ 
κατ᾽ ἐμέ, but perhaps with a more inclu- 
sive reference both to himself and those 
with him. Tapakarkéan| ‘com- 
fort, ‘consoletur,’ Vulg. (comp. Goth. 
‘eabvasstjai’), here judiciously changed 
from the ‘exhorte[n|tur’ of Clarom.; 
see Col. iv. 7. The subject of the παρά- 
κλησις may have been ‘ne offenderetis in 
meis vinculis’ (Bengel), or ‘ne animis 
deficiatis ob meas tribulationes’ (Est. ; 
compare ch. ili. 13); so also Gicum., 
Theophyl.; it is better, however, from 
our ignorance of the exact state of the 
church to leave the precise reference 
undefined, and to extend it generally to 
all particulars in which they needed it. 
On the meaning of the word, see notes 
on ch. iv. 1, and on 1 Thess. y. 11. 

23. εἰρήνη] ‘Peace, simply; not 
‘concordia,’ Calvin, ‘peaceableness,’ 
‘Hamm. (comp. εἰρηνεύετε, 2 Cor. xiii. 
11), as the Epistle, though εἰρηνικὸς (De 
Wette) in relation to the doctrinal as- 
pects of the union of Jews and Gentiles 
(see ch. 11.}, contains no special exhorta- 
tions on the subject of concord gener- 
ally. Εἰρήνη is however no mere parting 
salutation (comp. notes ch. i. 3, and on 
Gal. i. 8), but is in effect a valedictory 
prayer for that γαληνὴ καὶ εὐδία ψυχῆς 
(Orig. ap. Cram. Cat.) which was the 
blessed result of reconciliation with God, 
and His Spirit’s special gift ; see Steiger 
on 1 Pet, i. 2, Reuss, Theol. Chreét. αὐ. 


ἀδελφοῖς] ‘the brethren at Ephesus.’ 
Wieseler (Synops. p. 444) refers ἀδελφ. 
specially to the Jewish Christians, πάν- 
των to the Gentile Christians. This is 
surely a very doubtful, and even improb- 
able interpretation ; for is it likely that, 
in an epistle so opposed in its tenor to 
all national distinctions, any such special 
recognition of their existence weuld be 
found? Clearly of ἀδελφοὶ can only 
mean ‘the whole Christian brotherhood.’ 
ἀγάπη μετὰ mwiatews| ‘love with 
Juith, not ἀγάπη καὶ πίστις ; the Apostle 
does not simply pray for the presence of 
each of these graces in his converts, for, 
as Olsh. correctly observes, he assumed 
πίστις to be there already; what he 
As love 
(not here the divine love, Beng.) is the 
characteristic of a true faith, the medium 
by which its energy is displayed (Gal. v. 
6), so here faith is represented as the 
perpetual concomitant of a true love. If 
it had been ἀγάπ. σὺν πίστει it would 


prays for is their coézxistence. 


rather have conyeyed the here scarcely 
realizable conception of their coherence ; 
compare ch. iv. 31, πικρία... ἡ «τος σὺν 
κακίᾳ [badness of heart was the ‘fer- 
mentum,’ the active principle]; 1 Cor. 
x. 13, σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ Kal τὴν ἔκβασιν 
[ποῦ the one without the other]; see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1. On the 
connection of love and faith, compare 
Reuss, Theol. Chreét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 
205, and on the whole verse, a short but 
not very connected sermon of Augus- 
tine, Serm. ctxviit. Vol. vy. p. 911 (ed. 
Migne). 

24. ἡ χάρι] “ Grace,’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; 
the grace of God in Jesus Christ (Mey.). 
The use of the article is in harmony 
with the immediately preceding and suc- 
ceeding mention of Him through whom 


Cuap. VI. 94, 


tov Κύριον ἡμῶν 
(John i. 17) ἣ χάρις ἐγένετο. 
μετὰ πάντων x. τ. λ.] ‘with all that 
love our Lord, J. C.;’ second and more 
general and comprehensive form of ben- 
ediction. Meyer compares the similar 
maledictory form in 1 Cor, xvi. 22. 


ἀφϑαρσίᾳ)]ἅ ‘in incorruption,’ 


ἐν 
Neen ΠῚ [sine corruptione] Syr., ‘in 
σ σ᾽ 


incorruptione,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘incorrup- 
tione,’ Clarom., Arm., ‘in unriurcin,’ 
Goth., ‘in non-interitu,’ Ath.-Platt. 
The connection of this clause and the 
meaning of the words are both some- 
what doubtful, and must be noticed sepa- 
rately. (1) AMfeaning; excluding all 
arbitrary interpretations of the preposi- 
tion, 6. 9. ὑπέρ (Chrys. 2), διά The- 
ophyl.), μετά (Theod.), eis (Beza), and 
all doubtful explanations of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ, 
whether temporal (sc. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 
Matth.), brachylogical (iva ζωὴν ἔχωσιν 
ἐν aps., Olsh.), abstr. for concrete — 
really (ἐν ἀφϑάρτοις, Chrys. 2) or virtu- 
ally (‘in unvergiinglichem Wesen,’ Har- 
less), — we have three probable interpr. ; 
(a) ethical, ‘sincerity, Auth. Version, 
Chrys., compare 1 Pet. iii. 4; (b) quasi- 
local, in reference to the sphere of the 
ἀγάπη ; comp. ἐν ἐπουρανίοις ; (6) simply 
qualitative, i. e. ‘imperishableness,’ Gicum., 
Mey., al. To (a) the lexical meaning 
of the word is seriously opposed ; see 
Meyer. St. Paul’s use of ἀφϑαρσίᾳ is 
perhaps rather in favor of (b), as in all 
the six other passages where it occurs 
(Tit. ii. 3 |Rec.] is very doubtful) aps. 
refers directly or indirectly to a higher 
sphere than the present; still as aps. is 


21 


EPHESIANS. 


᾿Ιησοῦν 


101 


Χριστν ἐν ἀφδϑαρσίᾳ. 
anarthrous, and the explanation difficult, 
unless the unsatisfactory construction 
(8), see below, be adopted, we decide in 
favor of (c), and regard ἐν as marking 
the manner, or rather conditioning sphere, 
in which the action takes place ; comp. 
esp. Tit. iii. 15. (2) Connection; three 
constructions have been suggested; (a) 
with "Ino. Xp., scil. ‘ Christum immorta- 
lem non humilem,’ Wetst.;— (8) with 
ἡ χάρις, Harl., Stier; —(y) with ἀγα- 
πώντων, Chrys., Theod. Of these (a) is 
inadmissible, being exegetically unsatis- 
factory, and, on account of the absence 
of the article, grammatically suspicious ; 
(8) is harsh, especially in a simple bene- 
diction, on account of the intercalation 
of so many words between the nom. and 
the modal factor of the sentence; (γ) is 
adopted by all the Greek commentators, 
and seems most simple and satisfactory ; 
we translate, therefore, ‘grace be with 
all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in 
incorruption, 7. 6. in & manner and in an 
element that knows neither change, dim- 
inution, nor decay ;’ 4 yap eis τὸν Xp. 
ἀγάπη ἄφϑαρτος καὶ ἀμείωτος μᾶλλον δὲ 
καϑ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιδιδοῦσα τὴν ἡμέραν ὥφε- 
λεν εἶναι, CEcumen. Thus, then, this 
significant clause not only defines what 
the essence of the ἀγάπη is, but indicates 
what it ought to be, — perennial, immu- 
table, incorruptible. The concluding 
ἀμὴν [Rec. with DEKL; most Vv. and 
Ff.] is perhaps rightly rejected by 
Lachm., Tish., al. [with ABFG ; 2 mss., 
Aug., Boern., Amit*., Tol., Basm., 
JEth.-Pol., and some Ff.], as a liturgical 
addition. 


TRANSLATION. 


IN- OP VC Al. 


Tue principles on which this translation is based are explained in the 
general Preface to the commentary on the Galatians, and in the notice 
prefixed to the translation of that Epistle. The English Versions with 
which the translation is compared, and the editions which have been used, 
are the same as those used in the Translation of the former Epistle, with this 
exception, that I have also made extracts from the second edition (if indeed 
that be a right title) of the Genevan Version published in 1560. My atten- 
tion has been particularly called to this Version by a kind correspondent 
(Mr. H. Craik), who appears to me to have so far successfully confirmed the 
statements in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia (Art. ‘ Versions’), relative to this 
Version, as to make it seem very doubtful whether the edition of 1557, 
reprinted by Messrs. Bagster, has in any degree the same claims to be con- 
sidered Tae GENEVAN VERSION, as that published three years later. 
Without venturing to come to a positive decision on a question which 
requires much investigation, I have still thought it highly desirable to 
place before the student, under the title of Gen. 2, extracts from this later 
and for a long time popular edition, and to call attention to the apparently 
slender authority of the edition of 1557 as a formal representation of the 
views of the translators of Geneva. Fresh citations from the other Ver- 
sions have in a few cases been added, and some errors detected and rectified. 


THE EPISTLE TO 


THE EPHESIANS. 


CHAPTER. 1.1. 


AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the 
saints which are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ 
Jesus. *Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father and 


the Lord Jesus Christ. 


ὃ Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
blessed us with every blessing of the Spirit in the heavenly regions 


1. Christ Jesus] *‘ Jesus Christ,’ 
Auth. In Ephesus| ‘ At 
Ephesus,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 

2. And the Lord] So Wiel., Cov., 
Rhem.: ‘and from the Lord,’ Auth. and 
remaining Vv. ‘The prep. in such cases 
as the present should certainly be omit- 
ted, as tending to make that unity of 
source from whence the grace and peace 
come less apparent than the Greek ; 
comp. notes on Phil. i. 2. God and the 
Father] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: 
‘the God and Father,’ Auth.; ‘God the 
Father,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Gen. 2, ‘God even the Father.’ 

3. Blessed us| ‘ Hath blessed us,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vv. The aorist here 
ought certainly to be maintained in trans- 
lation, as the allusion is to the past act 
of the Redemption. The idiom of our 
language frequently interferes with the 
regular application of the rule, but it 


is still no less certain that the English 
preterite is the nearest equivalent of the 
Greek aor., see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 
360, 361, and compare Schoief. Hints 
(Pref.), p. xi. It is possible that there 
are cases when the English present, 
owing to its expressing an habitual action 
(Latham, § 573), might seem to corre- 
spond to the Greek aor., but as the itera- 
tive force of the latter tense, even if ad- 
mitted (see notes on Gal. v. 24), seems 
radically to differ from that of the Engl. 
pres. (the one expressing indefinite recur- 
rence in the past, see Jelf, Gr. § 402, 1, 
the other indef. recurrence in the present), 
it will seem best not to venture on any 
such translation. Every blessing] 
So Cov. (Test), and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen. 1: ‘all,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vy. Of the Spirit] ‘ Spir- 
itual,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.; see 
notes. The heavenly regions] 


166 


EPHESIANS. 


Cnap. I. 4—8. 


in Christ: * even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of 
the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him ; * hay- 
ing foreordained us IN LOVE for adoption through Jesus Christ into 
Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, ° to the praise 
of the glory of His grace, wherein He bestowed grace on us in the 
Beloved ; ‘im whom we are having redemption through His blood, 
the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the richness of 
His grace, * which He made to abound towards us in all wisdom 


‘ Heavenly places,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
except Rhem., ‘in ceelestials.’ 

4. Even as] ‘ According as,’ Auth, 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘as,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (Test), Gen. 2, Rhem. 
Chose] So Rhem.: ‘hath chosen,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Gen. 2; ‘had 
chosen,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. Blame- 
less] ‘ Without blame,’ Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘without 
wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘unspotted,’ Cov. (Test.); 
‘immaculate,’ Rhem. The slight change 
has been made for the sake of retaining 
the same translation both here and ch. v. 
27. On the distinction between ἄμωμος 
(‘in quo nihil est quod reprehendas’) 
and ἄμεμπτος (‘in quo nihil desiderari 
potest’), see Tittm, Synon. p. 29. 

5. Having, ete.| Auth. and all the other 
Vv. connect with the preceding verse; 
see notes. The participle expresses prob- 
ably a temporal relation, ‘after He had, 
ete.,’ but in so profound a subject it 
seems best to retain the more undefined 
transl. of Auth. Fore-ordained| 
Sim. Wiel., ‘bifore ordeyned ;’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., ‘ ordeyned before ;’ ‘ predes- 
tinated, Auth., and sim. the remaining 
Vv. ‘Unto the 
adoption of children, Auth., sim. hem. : 
well translated by Gen. (both), ‘to be 
adopted through J. C.,’ but perhaps 
scarcely sufficiently literal. Through| 
So Tynd.and the other Vy. except Auth., 
Wicl., Bish., Rhem., “by? Into 
Himself| ‘To Himself? Auth. ; ‘into 
Him,’ Wicl., ‘uuto Him silfe,’ Tynd., 


For adoption] 


Cran., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.; * in 
Hymselfe,’ Cov. (Test.). Whether we 
adopt the translation ‘into’ or ‘unto’ 
matters but little, both approximating 
to, but neither /i/y expressing the mean- 
ing of the inclusive eis, perhaps English 
idiom (‘adopt into’) is slightly in fivor 
of the former. It seems also best in 
English, for the sake of perspicuity, to 
return to the reflexive form : ‘into Him’ 
(ed. 1), though literal, perhaps may seem 
ambiguous. 

6. Bestowed grace on us| ‘ Hath made 
us accepted,’ Auth. and all Vv. except 
Wiel., ‘hath glorified us,’ Rhem., ‘hath 
eratified us.’ 

7. Weare having] Auth. and all Vv., 
‘we have.’ In the next words we must 
appy- be content to omit (with all the 
Vv.) the expressive article ‘the redemp- 
tion;’ our idiom seeming to require 
some adject., e.g. ‘the promised red.,’ to 
make the article perfectly intelligible. 

Our transgressions] ‘ Sins,’ Auth. and 
all Vv. 

8. Which He made to abound] ‘Hath 
abounded,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘He shed on 
us abundantly,’ Zynd., and sim. Cor. ; 
‘ He hath ministered unto us abundantly,’ 
Cran.; ‘ He hath been abundant towarde 
us,’ Gen. 2; ‘He abounded toward us,’ 
Gen. On this clause a friend and accu- 
rate scholar has made the observation, 
that as all verbs of the character of 
περισσεύω may practically be resolved 
into a ‘verbum faciendi’ with an ap- 
pended accus. elicited from the verb 


Cuap. I. 9—12. 


EPHESIANS. 


167 


and discernment ; ° having made known unto us the mystery of His 
will, according to the good pleasure which He purposed in Himself 
* in reference to the dispensation of the fulness of times, to gather 
up again together all things in Christ, the things that are in heaven 
and the things that are on earth, even in Him; "in whom we were 
also chosen as Mis inheritance, having been foreordained according 
to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of 
His will ; τ᾿ that we should be to the praise of His glory, who have 


(‘make an abundance of’) the gen. ἧς 
may here receive a simple explanation 
without reference to the principles of 
attraction. This remark appears to 
deserve consideration. Discernment] 
‘Prudence,’ Auth., Wiel., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ perceavaunce,’ 
Tynd.; ‘understanding,’ Gen. (both). 
The transl. ‘prudence’ appears to give 
the word a more decided reference to 
practice than the context will admit ; 
‘understanding, on the other hand, is 
too abstract, and fails to recognize the 
distinction between σύνεσις and φρόνησις. 
Perhaps the transl. in the text, or ‘ intel- 
ligence,’ as indicating an application 
and exercise of the φρήν, and a result of 
(spiritual) σοφία (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 13), 
approaches more nearly to the true 
meaning of the word in this passage 
9. The good, etc.) ‘ His,’ Auth. 
Purposed| So Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.: ‘hath purposed,’ Auth.; ‘had 
purp.,’ Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. 
10. In reference to] ‘That in the dis- 
pens.,’ ete., Auth., sim. Gen. (both) Bish. ; 
‘to have it declared when the tyme were 
full come,’ Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov. ; ‘in 
the dispens.,’ Cov. (Test.) Rhem. The 
translation in the text, or ‘ with a view 
to’ (see notes), seems to make the mean- 
ing a little more distinct than the more 
usual ‘ for.’ To gather up again 
together] So Gen., omitting ‘up,’ but 
with a different turn of sentence: ‘ He 
might gather together in one,’ Auth., 
Gen. 2, Bish. ; ‘shuld be gaddered toge- 


ther,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘to enstore,’ Wicl. ; 
‘to set up all things perfectly,’ Cov. 
(Test.), sim. Oran. The things, etc. | 
So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Cov., Tynd., 
Cran., ‘both which are in heaven, and 
which are,’ Auth., Bish.: the repetition 
which the older translators thus preserve 
is perhaps not without force in this 
solemn enunciation of the eternal pur- 
pese of God. 

11. We were also, etc.] ‘Also we have 

obtained an,’ Auth., ‘we ben clepid bi 
sorte,’ Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), hem. ; 
‘we are made heyres,’ Tynd., sim. Cran. ; 
‘by whom also we are come to the in- 
heritaunce,’ Cov.; ‘in whom also we 
are chosen,’ Gen. (both), Bish. 
Having been fore-ordained| ‘ Being pre- 
destinated,? Auth. Some of the Vv. 
resolve the part. into a finite verb with 
the copula (‘and were thereto predesti- 
nate,’ Tynd., Cran.), others, as Gen. 1, 
express more fully the temporal meaning 
(‘when we were’): the simpler transla- 
tion of the text (comp. Wiel., Rhem.) is 
appy. to be preferred. His will} 
So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘His own will, Auth. 
and remaining Vv. 

12. Who have, etc.] ‘ Who first trusted,’ 
Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘ that had hoped 
bifor,’ Wicl.; ‘even we whyche afore 
have hoped,’ Cov. (Test.),; sim. /Rhem. ; 
‘ we which before believed,’ Tynd., Cran., 
sim. Bish. The force of the perf: part. 
should be retained in transl., esp. as this 
can so easily be done by the inserted 
‘have,’ as Cov., Rhem.; the English 


168 EPHESIANS. Cnar. 1. 13—17, 


before hoped in Christ: “in whom ye too, having heard the word 
of truth, the gospel of your salvation,—in whom, J say, having 
a'so believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, 
“which is the earnest of our inheritance, for the redemption of the 
purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory. 

* For this cause I also, having heard of the faith which is 
among you in the Lord Jesus, and the love which ye have unto 
all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention 
of you in my prayers; ” that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Father of glory, would give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and 


perfect expresses the past in connection, 
by its efforts or consequences, with the 
present: see Latham, μηρί. Lang. ὃ 579 
(ed. 3). 

13. Ye too having, etc.| So with a 
similarly suspended member, Rhem., ‘in 
whom you also, when you had heard,’ 
ete.: ‘ye also trusted after that, ete.,’ 
Auth., sim. Gen. (both) ; ‘in whom ye 
also (after that, ete , wherein ye beleved) 
were sealed,’ Tynd. ; ‘on whom also ye 
beleved after that,’ Coverd., similarly Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘we also believe forasmoch as 
we have,’ Cran. ; ‘in whom also ye hoped 
after that ye heard,’ Bish. 1 say, 
having, etc.] ‘Also after that ye,’ Auth. 
The change to the particip. structure in 
both members seems to make the sen- 
tence a little more distinct, and to pre- 
serve in the latter, the close connection 
of καὶ with πιστεύσαντες ; see notes. 
The| So all the Vv. except Auth., ‘that 
holy Spirit.’ 

14. Which] On the form ‘ which,’ see 
notes on Gal. i. 2 ( Transl.). ‘or | 
So Cov. (Qest.), sim. Cran.:~* until,’ 
Auth., Gen. 2 ( Gen. 1, paraphrases, ‘ that 
we might be fully restored to libertie’) ; 
‘into the red.,’ Wiel. ; ‘to redeme the,’ 
Tynd.; ‘unto the χοᾶ, Bish. ; ‘to the 
red. of,’ hem. The translation of 
Turnbull, Hpp. of Paul, p. 92, ‘in the 
redeemed possession,’ is very insufficient 
and inexact. 


15. For this cause, etc.| ‘Wherefore I 
also after I heard,’ Auth., sim. Tynd., 
Bish. ; ‘wherefore,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Gen. 1, Bish. ; ‘therefore,’ Wicl., 
Gen. 2, Rhem. The transl. ‘for this 
cause’ is more consonant with the gen- 
eral style of Auth than the equally literal 
and correct ‘on this account,’ and so 
substituted accordingly. ‘ Wherefore ’ 
(Auth. ) is rather the transl. of διό. 

The faith which ts among you| ‘Your 
faith,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
‘the fayth which ye have,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. And the 
love which ye have| ‘And love,’ Auth., 


Tynd., Cran., Gen., and similarly Bish., 


Gen. 2, Rhem.; ‘the love into,’ Wiel. 

17. Would give] ‘May give,’ Auth., 
Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. ; ‘myght geve,’ 
Tynd., Gen. (both), Bish. The change 
in the text is made as an attempt to ex- 
press the conditioned, hoped for, realiza- 
tion (‘would please to give’) expressed 
by the opt. δῴη; comp. Latham, Engl. 
Lang. ὃ 592, Wallis, Gramm. Angl. p.107- 
Hermann (Soph. lect. 57) asserts that 
in German the distinction may be ob- 
served by translating the Greek subj. by 
the German ind. pres., the opt. by the 
German imperf. subjunctive. The transl. 
of Tynd.,ete., though practically preserv- 
ing the correct shade of meaning, vio- 
lates the law of ‘ the succession of tenses ;’ 
see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616. 


Cuap. I. 18—22. EPHESIANS. 


169 


revelation in true knowledge of Him; ™ having the eyes of your 
heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of His call- 
ing, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance are 
among the saints, “and what the surpassing greatness of His 
power zs to us-ward who believe, according to the operation of the 
power of His might, * which He wrought in Christ, when He 
raised Him from the dead,—and He set Him on His right hand 
in the heavenly regions, * over above all Principality, and Power, 
and Might, and Dominion, and indeed every name that is named 
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; ”and 
put all things under His feet, and gave Him as Head over all 


True knowledge) ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth., 
and all the other Vy. 

18. Having the eyes, etc.| ‘The eyes of 
your* understanding being enlightened,’ 
Auth., sim. Bish. (‘lightened’); ‘and 
lighten the eyes of youre myndes,’ Tynd., 
Cran., Gen. 1, sim. Cov.; ‘the eyes of 
youre harte beynge lyghtened,’ Cov. 
(Test ): ‘the eies of your hart illumin- 
nated,’ Fhem. Are among| 
‘In,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘apon the sainctes.’ 
It may be observed that Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen. (both), similarly insert the 
verb immediately before the  prep., 
showing that they did not consider 
ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις as merely κληρονομ. αὐτοῦ ; 
see notes. 


19. What] ‘What is,’ Auth. and the’ 


other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘whyche 
is.” Surpassing] ‘ Excellent,’ 
Wicl.: ‘passing,’ Rhem.; ‘exceeding,’ 
Auth. and other Vv. 15 to us-ward| 
“To us-ward, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen. 
1, Bish. ; ‘in to us,’ Wiel. ; ‘toward us,’ 
Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2, Rhem. 

Operation] So Rhem.: ‘working, Auth. 
and the remaining Vy.; see notes on 
ch. iii. 7. The power of His might] 
‘His mighty power,’ Auth., Cov., Bish., 
sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen. ; ‘the myght of 
His vertu,’ Wicl.; ‘the myght of His 
power,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 


22 


20. And He set] ‘And set,’ Auth. : the 
change in the original from the participial 
structure to that of the aor. indic. is bet- 
ter preserved by inserting the pronoun. 

On His right hand| So Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., sim. Wiel. : 
“at His own right hand,’ Auth.; so also 
Cov. (Test.), Gen. (both), but omit 
‘own,’ Fleavenly regions| ‘ Heavenly 
places,’ Auth., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ heav- 
enli thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Cran. ; ‘celestials,’ Rhem. 

21. Over above] ‘Far above,’ Auth., 
Gen. (both), Bish. : ‘above,’ Wiel. and 
remaining Vy. And indeed] ‘And,’ 
Auth., see notes. 

22. Put] ‘Hath put,’ Auth. Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem.: ‘hath ap- 
pointed,’ Gen. (both: Ἀεὶ. alone omits 
the auxiliary verb, ‘and made alle 
thingis,’ ete. And gave Him, etc.] 
‘And gave Him to be head over all 
things to, etc.,’ Auth., Bish. (‘the 
head’) ; ‘and hath made Him above all 
thynges, the heed of, ete.,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran. ; ‘and made Hym heade over all 
the congr.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘hath ap- 
pointed Him aboue all thinges, the heade 
of, etc.,’ Gen. 1; ‘to be the heade of,’ 
Gen. 2; ‘and hath made Him head ouer 
al the church,’ Rhem. The emphatic 
position of αὐτόν in the original should 
not be left unnoticed. 


170 


EPHESIANS. 


CHAP 1. 93..11. 1--.-5. 


things to the church, * which indeed is His body, the fulness of 


Him that filleth all with all. 


CuaPTer II. 


AND you also being dead by your trespasses and your sins, — 
* wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, 
according to the prince of the empire of the air, of the spirit that 
now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; * among whom even we 


23. Which indeed] ‘Which,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wreel., ‘ that 
is.” If the distinction usually made 
between ‘that’ and ‘ which’ is correct, 
viz., that the former is restrictive, the 
latter resumptive (see Brown, Gramm. of 
Grammars, II. 5, p. 293, and notes on 
Col. iii. 1, Transl.), ‘ that’ will often be 
a correct translation of ἥτις when used 
differentially (see notes on Gal. iv. 24), 
6. g., ἣ πόλις ἥτις ἐν Δέλφοις κτίζεται ; in 
the present case, however, Wiel. is not 
correct, as ἥτις appears here used ez- 
plicatively. With all] ‘In all,’ 
Auth., Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem., and 
similarly the remaining Vv. 


Cuap. 11. 1. And you also who, etc.) 
‘And you hath He quickened who, etc.,’ 
Auth. The participle ὄντας has been 
differently translated : ‘whereas ye were,’ 
Cran.: ‘when ye were,’ Cov. (probably 
following Vulg.); ‘that were,’ Tynd., 
Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘who were,’ Auth. 
Of these, the first two, though more cor- 
rect in point of grammar than 7 γπα., 
al., which tacitly apply an article, seem 
searcely so satisfactory as the more sim- 
ple translation in the text, esp. if the 
present verse be compared with verse 5. 
The part. ὄντας obviously marks the 
state in which they were at the time 
when God quickened them. While in 
verse 5 this is brought prominently for- 
ward by the caf; here, on the contrary, 


the καὶ is joined with, and gives promi- 
nence to buds. Inthe present case, then, 
a simple indication of their state without 
any temporal or causal adjunct, ‘ when,’ 
‘whereas,’ etc., seems most suitable to 
the context, as less calling away the 
attention from the more emphatic ὑμᾶς. 

By| So Rhem.; ‘in,’ Auth. and 
other Vv. Your trespasses, etc.] 
“Trespasses and sins’ Auth., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. (both), Bish., similarly Tynd. : 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. insert ‘ your’ 
before the first substantive only. 

2. Once walked] ‘In time past ye 
walked,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘ye wandriden sumtyme, and 
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Empire} 
“Power,” Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; ‘the governor that ruleth in,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Gen., sim. Cov. This 
somewhat modern form of expression 
seems the only one that exactly repre- 
sents the view taken in the notes of the 
collective term ἐξουσία. Of the 
spirit] So Wiel., Rhem.: ‘the spirit,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; 
‘namely after the sp.,’ Cov.; ‘and the 
sp., Gen. 1; ‘even the sp.,’ Gen. 2. 
Sons] So Wicl.; ‘children,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. 

3. Even we all] ‘ Also we all,’ Auth. ; 
‘we also had,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both) ; 
‘we ali had,’ Bish. Once had our 
convers.| ‘Had our conyers. in times 
past,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv. 


Cuap: II. 3—6. 


EPHESIANS. 


171 


all once had our conversation in’ the lusts of our flesh, doing the 
desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were children by 
nature — of wrath, even as the rest: — *but God, being rich in 
mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, ὅ even 
while we were dead by our trespasses, quickened us together with 
Christ (by grace have ye been saved), ° and raised ws up with Him, 


except Wicl., ‘lyueden sumtyme ; Cov. 
(Test.), ‘somtyme;’ Rhem., ‘conversed 
sometime.’ This lighter translation of 
mote seems preferable both here and in 
ver. 2. The order of the Greek would 
seem to require ‘had our conversation 
once,’ but this would lead to ambiguity 
when read in connection with the suc- 
ceeding words. Doing| So Wiel., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Cov. : 
‘fulfilling,’ Auth., and sim. the remain- 
ing Vv. Thoughts! Wiel., Cov. 
(Test.), Fhem.; ‘mind,’ Auth. and re- 
maining Vv. We were} ‘ Were,’ 
Auth. Children| ‘The children,’ 
Auth. and all other Vv. except Wicl., 
“the sons.’ By nature — of wrath| 
‘By nature the children of wrath,’ Auth. 
and sim. all other Vy. All attempts to 
explain away the simple and ordinary 
meaning of these words must be, some- 
what summarily, pronounced as both 
futile and untenable. Such a transla- 
tion as ‘children of impulse ’ (Maurice, 
Unity, p. 538), has only to be noticed to 
be rejected. The substantive ὀργὴ is 
used in thirty-four other places in the N. 
T., and in none does it appear even to 
approach to the meaning thus arbitrarily 
assigned to it. The rest] So 
Rhem.: ‘others,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘other 
men,’ Wicl.; ‘other,’ Tynd. and the re- 
maining Vv. 

4. Being rich] ‘Who is rich,’ Auth. ; 
“that is,’ Wiel. ; ‘which is,’ Tynd. and 
the remaining Vy. Because of | 
‘For,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
Bish.. Rhem.; ‘through,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Gen. (both). 


5. While] ‘When,’ Auth. and all Vv. 
The change is only made to express 
more forcibly the existing state; see 
notes. By our trespasses| Similarly 
Tynd., ‘by sinne ;’ Cran. Gen. (both), 
Bish., Rhem., ‘by synnes ;’ Cov. (Test.), 
‘thorow synnes:’ ‘in sins,’ Auth., Wicl., 
Cov. Quickened| So Wicl., Cran., 
Rhem. ; ‘hath quickened,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy. Have ye been] 
“Ye are,’ Auth. On the simplest practi- 
cal rule of choosing between ‘am’ and 
‘have been’ in the translation of the 
Greek perf. pass., see notes on Col. i. 16 
(Trans!.). ‘Are’ might indeed still be 
retained on the ground that ‘am’ with 
the part. does involve an essentially past 
element (Latham, Engl. Lang. ὃ 568), 
still the change seems a little more in 
harmony with the context. 

6. Raised] So Wicel., Cran., Rhem. : 
‘hath raised,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. Up with him] So Cov. (both), 
Rhem.: ‘up together,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vv. except Wicl., which omits 
‘up.’ Sit with him] So Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘sit together,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. except Cov. ; ‘set us 
with Him.’ The heavenly regions| 
‘Heavenly places,’ <Auth.; sim. Gen. 
(both), ‘the heavenly places :’ ‘hevenly 
thingis,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Bish. ; 
“among them of heaven,’ Cran.; ‘the 
celestials,’ Rhem. 

7. That He might, etc.| So as to order, 
Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both), Rhem. ; ‘that 
in the ages to come He might,’ Auth., 
and sim. Cov. (both), Cran., Bish. 

That are coming] ‘To come,’ Auth. and 


112 


EPHESIANS. 


Cosas, 11]. 7..-:1. 


and made us sit with Him in the*heavenly regions, in Christ Jesus ; 
“that He might show forth in the ages that are coming the exceed- 
ing riches of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. 
* For by GRACE have ye been saved through faith; and this cometh 
not of yourselves, the gift is Gop’s ; ὃ not of works, that no man 
should boast: ' for His workmanship are we, created in Christ 
Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should 


walk in them. 


“ Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye, Gentiles in the flesh, 
who are called the Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision, 


the other Vv. except Wiclif, ‘ above 
comyng,’ hem. ‘succeeding.’ Shew 
Jorth| ‘Shew,’ Auth., and all the other 
Vv. In kindness] So Tynd., Cov., 
Cran.; ‘in His kindness,’ Auth., Gen. 
(both), Bish. ; ‘in goodness,’ Wiel., Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘in bountie,’ Rhem. Inj 
So all the Vv. except Auth. Cran., Bish., 
‘through.’ 

8. Have ye been| ‘Are ye,’ Auth.: see 
notes on ver. 5. And this cometh] 
Sim. Wiel.: ‘and that not,’ Auth. and 
remaining Vy. It does not seem neces- 
sary to change ‘of’ into ‘from,’ the 
former being frequently a very suitable 
translation of ἐκ ; see notes on Gal. ii. 
16. The gift is God’s| ‘It is the 
gift of God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
The emphasis is maintained, appy. more 
in accordance with English idiom, by 
placing the gen. at the end rather than 
at the beginning. 

9. That no man] So Wicl., Rhem.: 
‘lest any man.’ Auth. and the remain- 
ing Vv. 

10. His workmanship are we] ‘ We are 
His workmanship,’ Auth, Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘we 
ben the makynge of Hym,’ Wicl.; ‘we 
are His work,’ Rhem. The emphatic 
position of αὐτοῦ should not be neglected. 
For good, etc.| ‘Unto,’ Auth., and the 
other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem., ‘in.’ Prepared] So Cov. 


(Test.), but omits ‘ before ;’ sim. Rhem., 
but inserts ‘hath:’ ‘hath before or- 
dained,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vy., 
some of which, Wicl., Gen. (both), omit 
“before” some ‘hath,’ Tynd., Cov., some 
both words, as Cran., Gen. 

11. That aforetime]| **That ye being 
in time past,’ Auth. This translation of 
ποτὲ (Cov.) is perhaps a little simpler 
than that of Auth. (and remaining Vy. 
except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., “ sum- 
tyme’), and serves equally well to keep 
up the antithesis between ποτὲ and τῷ 
καιρῷ ἐκείνῷ in yer. 12. By the 
so-called, etc.| ‘ By that which is called 
the circumcision,’ Auth., and similarly 
all Vv. Performed by hand] So, 
as to order, Wiel., ‘made bi hand in 
fleisch ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘made wyth the 
hande in the flesh ;” ‘in the flesh made 
by hands,’ Auwth., sim. Gen. 2, Bish.; 
‘which circumcision is made by hondes,’ 
Tynd., Cran., sim. Cov.; ‘and which is 
made by handes,’ Gen. 1. The trans- 
position in the text seems desirable as 
precluding any connection of ἐν σαρκὶ 
with λεγομένης, the error of Tynd., Cran., 
and most of the other Vy.; ‘made with 
the hande,’ Cov., and sim. remaining Vy. 

12. Ye were at that time] So Tynd., 
Gen. (both), sim. Wicl., Rhem.: ‘at that 
time ye were,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. except Cov., ‘that ye at the time 
were.’ The promise] So Cran., 


Cuap. II. 12—18. EPHESIANS. 


173 


performed by hand in the flesh, — that ye were at that time 
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and 
without God in the world, ® but now in Christ Jesus ye who once 
were far off are become nigh by the blood of Christ. “ For He is 
our Peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of 
the partition — " ¢o wit, the enmity — in His flesh, having abolished 
the law of commandments expressed in decrees; that he might 
make the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace, 
16 and might reconcile again both of us in one body unto God by 
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. “ And He came and 
preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that 
were nigh; “since through Him we both in one Spirit have our 


*Coverd. (Test.), *Rhem.: ‘ promise,’ 
Auth, and the remaining Vv. 

13. Once were] So Gen. (both) : “some- 
times,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Tynd., ‘a while agoo ;’ Cov., ‘afore- 
tyme.’ Are become] ‘ Are made,’ 
Auth. and allthe other Vv. The change, 
however, seems desirable, if only to ob- 
viate the supposition that ἐγενήθητε is 
here used with a passive force ; see notes 
on ch. iii. 7. The aorist cannot be pre- 
served in English when in association 
with the particle of present time (νυνί) ; 
comp. notes on ch. ill. 5. 

14. Maude — broke] ‘ Hath made..... 
hath broken,’ Auth. and sim. the other 
Vv. except Wicl.,‘made..... and un- 
bindynge;’ Fhem., ‘hath made..... 
and dissolving.’ The partition] 
So Rhem., and sim. Gen. (both) : ‘ parti- 
tion,’ Auth. ; ‘the myddel-walle,’ Wiel. ; 
“that was a stoppe bitwene us,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Bish. 

15. To wit, the enmity, etc.| ‘ Having 
abolished in His flesh the enmity even,’ 
Auth., and similarly as to connection the 
other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem, which separate ἐν σαρκὶ from 
καταργήσας, and appy. connect it with 
τὴν ἔχϑραν ; see notes. Expressed 
in decrees| Similarly Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: 


“contained in ordinances,’ Auth., Bish. ; 
“maundementis, bidomes,’ Wiel. ;‘ which 
standeth in ordinances,’ Gen. 2. 

That he might make, etc.| Similarly Cov. 
(both), Rhem.; ‘for to make in Himself 
of twain,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd., 
Cran., Gen. (both); ‘that he make two 
in Hym Silf into a newe man,’ Wicl. ; 
‘for to make of twaine one new man in 
Hymeselfe,’ Bish. 

16. And might] ‘And that He might,’ 
Auth. Reconcile again| ‘ Recon- 
cile,’ Auth. and the other Vv.; see 
notes in loc. Both of us| ‘Both, 
Auth. In one body unto God] 
Similarly Wrel., Cov. (Test), ERhem. : 
“unto God in one body,’ Auth. and re- 
maining Vv. 

17. And He came] ‘And came,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. 
(Test.), ‘and He comynge ;’ Shem., 
“and coming He.’ And peace to| 
* “And to,’ Auth. 

18. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. We both, etc.] ‘We 
both have access by one Spirit,’ Auth. ; 
‘han nyg comynge,’ Wicl.; ‘have an 
open waye,’ Tynd. Gen. 1; ‘an in- 
traunce,’ Cov. (Test.) Cran., Gen. 2, 
similarly Cov.; ‘we have both an en- 
trance,’ Bish. ; ‘have access,’ them. 


114 EPHESIANS. Ὅπαρ. Π, 19---99, ΠΠ. 1---4. 


admission unto the Father. "So then ye are no more strangers 
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God, ” built up upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; 
in whom all the building being fitly framed together groweth into 
an holy temple in the Lord ; *in whom ye also are builded together 
for an habitation of God in the Spirit. 


Cuapter III. 


For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you 
Gentiles, — *if indeed ye have heard of the dispensation of the 
grace of God which was given me to you-ward; *how that By 
REVELATION the mystery was made known unto me, as I have 
before written in few words ; * agreeably to which, when ye read, 
ye can perceive my understandmg in the mystery of Christ, 


19. So then] ‘ Now therefore,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ there- 
for now ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘therefore ;’ 
Rhem., ‘now then.’ Sojourners] 
‘Foreigners,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov. (both), ‘ straungers.’ 
But ye are] *‘ But, Auth. 

20. Built up| ‘And are built,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wiel., ‘aboue 
bildid ;’ Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘built.’ 

21. All the building] So Auth., Gen. 
(both), Bish. ; ‘eche bildynge,’ Wicl. ; 
‘every bildynge,’ Tynd., Cov. (both) ; 
‘what buildyng so ever,’ Cran.: see 
notes. Being fitly| ‘ Fitly,’ Auth. 

22. In the Spirit] So Wiel., Tynd., 
Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘ through the 
Spirit,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘by the 
Spirit,’ Gen. (both). 


Cuap. III. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘ Jesus 
Christ,’ Auth. and other Vv., but with- 
out any difference of reading in the Rec. 
Text. 

2. If indeed] ‘If ye, Auth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘ if netheless,’ 


Wicl. ; ‘aceordinge as,’ Cov. ; ‘if so be 
that,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘if yet,’ Rhem. 
Which, etc.| It is nearly impossible 
(without paraphrase) to imply that 
‘which ’ refers to ‘ grace : in the original 
edition ‘ God’ was followed by a comma. 
Was given] ‘Is given,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. 

3. The mystery, etc.| *‘ He made 
known unto me the mystery,’ Auth. 
As 1 have before written] ‘As I wrote 
afore,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘ wrote 
above,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. (both), and 
similarly Wiel. 

4. Agreeably to which] ‘ Whereby,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘as;’ Cov., (Test.), ‘like as;’ Rhem., 
‘according as.’ Can] ‘May,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vv., but perhaps 
not with perfect exactness ; the rule ap- 
parently being, ‘may et can potentiam 
innuunt, cum hoc tamen discrimine, may 
et might vel de jure vel saltem de rei 
possibilitate dicuntur, at can et could de 
viribus agentis,’ Wallis, Gramm. Angl. 
p- 107. Perceive my understanding} 


Cuapr. III. 5—9. EPHESIANS. 


175 


* which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of 
men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and 
prophets by the Spirit; ° ¢o wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, 
and of the same body, and joint-partakers of the promise, in Christ 
Jesus, through the Gospel ; ’ whereof I became a minister, accord- 
ing to the gift of the grace of God which was given unto me 
according to the operation of His power. ἥ Unto me, who am less 
than the least of all saints, was this grace given, —to preach 
among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, ° and to 
make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which 
from the ages hath been hid in God, who created ALL THINGS ; 


So Cov.: ‘understand my knowledge,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish. ; “know myne under- 
stondynge, Zynd., Gen. (both) ; undur- 
stonde my prudence,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
“und. my wisdom,’ hem. 

5. Generations] So Wiclif, Cov. 
(Test.), Ithem.: ‘ages,’ Auth., Gen. 2, 
Bish. ; ‘tymes passed,’ Tynd., and re- 
maining Vy. It hath now been| 
“It is now,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘now it is.” This is a case 
where the strict translation cannot be 
maintained ; in English the aorist has 
no connection with pres. time (Latham, 
Engl. Lang. ὃ 579), and therefore cannot 
here properly be connected with νῦν ; in 
Greek this is possible, from the greater 
temporal latitude of the tense; comp. 
notes on 1 Tim. ch. ν. 15 ( Transl. ). 

6. To wit, that] Similarly Coverd., 
‘namely, that:’ ‘that,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy. except Rhem. (which is 
excessively harsh), ‘the Gentiles to be, 
eter Are] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.) : 
‘should be,’ Auth. and the remaining 
Vv. except Fhem., supr. ‘cit. Joint- 
partakers| Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke par- 
takers :’ ‘partakers,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vv. exeept Wicl., ‘ parteneris 
to gidre ;” Rhem., ‘comparticipant.’ 

The promise] * ‘ His promise,’ Auth. 
Christ Jesus] * ‘ Christ,’ Auth. 
Through] So Cov. (Test): ‘by,’ Auth, 


Wicl., Cov., Gen. 2, Bish., Rhem.; ‘by 
the means of,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1. 

7. 1 became] * ‘I was made,’ Auth. 
Which was given] Sim. Wicl., Coverd. 
(both), Cran., Rhem., ‘which is given :’ 
Auth. and remaining Vv., ‘ given.’ 
According to] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘by,’ 
Auth., Wicl.: ‘thorow,’ Tynd., Gen. 
(both) : ‘after the,’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., 
Bish. Operation] So Rhem.: 
‘effectual working,’ Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’ 
Wiel. and all the remaining Vy. This 
word is always difficult to “translate : 
‘effectual working’ is perhaps too strong; 
‘working’ alone is appy. too weak. 
Perhaps the term in the text as marking 
a more formal nature of working is 
slightly preferable; comp. notes on 2 
Thess. ii. 12, where, however, the present 
translation would seem less suitable. 

8. Was this] ‘Is this,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. To preach] So 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.), sim. Rhem. ; ‘ that I 
should preach,’ Auth. and all the remain- 
ing Vv. The change is made to pre- 
serve a similar translation of the two in- 
finitives ; see Scholef. Hints, p. 190. 

9. Dispensation] * ‘ Fellowship,’ Auth. 
From the ages| ‘From the beginning of 
the world,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex- 
cept Wiel., Rhem., ‘fro worldis,’ and 
Cov. (Test.), ‘sence the worlde beganne.’ 
All things} * ‘ All things by J. C., Auth. 


EPHESIANS. Cuapr. III. 10—18 


176 


* to the intent that now unto the Principalities and the Powers in 
the heavenly regions, might be made known through the church 
the manifold wisdom of God, ™ according to the purpose of the 
ages which he wrought in Christ Jesus our Lord; “in whom we 
have our boldness and our admission, in confidence, through the 
faith in Him. “ Wherefore I entreat you not to lose heart in my 
tribulations for you, seeing it is your glory. 

“ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, ” from whom 
every race in heaven and on earth is thus named, ™ that he would 
grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened 
with might through His Spirit into the inner man, ” so that Christ 
may dwell in your hearts by faith, —’’ ye having been rooted and 


10. The powers] ‘ Powers,’ Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ po- 
testatis.’ 
‘Heavenly places,’ Auth., Gen. (both) ; 
‘hevenly thingis,’ Wécl., Cov. (Test.), 
Cran., Bish.: ‘in heven,’ Tynd., Cov. : 
‘in the celestials,’ Rhem. Might 
be made known] ‘ Might be known,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘be 
knowun ;’ Jthem., ‘may be notified.’ 
Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other 
ἅν. 

11. Purpose of the ages] ‘ Eternal pur- 
pose,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wiel., ‘ordenaunce of worldis,’ and 
Rhem., ‘prefinition of worldes.’ 
Wrought] So Cran., Gen. (both), Bish: 
‘purposed,’ Auth., Tynd. : ‘made,’ Wicl., 
—Rhem.: ‘hath shewed,’ Cov. (both). 

12. Our boldness| ‘Boldness,’ Auth. 
Our admission| ‘ Access,’ Auth., Rhem. ; 
‘intraunce,’ (both), Cran., Gen. 
(both), Bish. In confidence| So, 
as regards the prep., Wicl., Cov. (both), 
Rhem., Bish. ; ‘with,’ Auth., Cran., Gen. 
(both). The words προσαγωγὴν ἐν 
πεποιϑήσει are joined together by Tynd. 
and appy. all Vy. except Wécl., and 
Auth. (orig. ed.). 

13. 7 entreat you, etc.) ‘I desire that 
ye faint not,’ Auth., Gen. 2, Bish., and 
similarly the remaining Vy. except Wicl., 


The heavenly regions} 


Jov. 


‘axe that ye faile not.’ Seeing it is, 
etc.] ‘Which is,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. 

14. The Father] ‘The Father* of our 
Lord Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 

15. From] ‘Of, Auth., Gen., Bish, 
Rhem. Every race| ‘The whole 
family,’ Auth., Gen. (both), ‘ eche fadir- 
heed,’ Wrel., similarly Coverd. (Test.) ; 
“which is father over all that ys called 
father,’ Tynd , Cran., sim. Cov. : ‘all the 
familie,’ Bish.; ‘al paternitie, Rhem. 
On the difficulty of properly translating 
this clause, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. 
ii. p>, 26) (68.921 And on earth| 
‘And earth,’ Auth. Is thus 
named| ‘Is named,’ Auth. The word 
thus is introduced only to make the 
paronomasia in the original a little more 
apparent. 

16. Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vy. Into| ‘In, Auth. and 
all the other Vv. 

17. So that] 
other Vy. except Rhem., 
dwel, etc.’ ; 

18. Yehaving been, ete.| Similarly Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.: ‘that ye being,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vy. except Wiel. 
which omits ‘being.’ That ye may 
be fully able] ‘May be able,’ Auth. and 
sim. all the other Vy. 


‘That,’ Auth., and the 
‘Christ to 


Cuap. IV. 1—2I. EPHESIANS. 177 


grounded in love, — that ye may be fully able to comprehend with 
all saints what zs the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, 
“and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye 
may be filled up to all the fulness of God. 

” Now unto Him that is able to do beyond all things, abundantly 
beyond what we ask or think, according to the power that worketh 
in us, “unto Him be glory in the church, in Christ Jesus, to all 
the generations of the age of the ages. Amen. 


Cuapter IV. 


I ExnorT you, therefore, I the prisoner in the Lord, that ye 
walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye were called, ° with 
all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one 
another in love ; *striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
bond of peace. * U’here is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye 


19. May] So Cov. (both), Gen. (both), that,’ Auth., and in similar order all the 
Rhem.: ‘might,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., other Vv. It seems, however, desirable 
Bish. ; change made to avoid the violation to maintain the emphatic collocation 
of the law of ‘succession of tenses;’ see (‘ad excitandum affectum, quo cit effi- 
Latham Engl. Lang. § 616. Up cacior exhortatio,’ Est.) of the original. 
10] ‘With,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- There is some variation in the translation 
cept Wicl., ‘in;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘into;’ of παρακαλῶ. The translation in the text 


Rhem., ‘ unto.’ is found in Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. : 
20. To do beyond, etc.| ‘Todo exceed- ‘beseech,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
ing abundantly above all that, etc., Auth. Rhem.; ‘ praye,’ Gen. (both), In the 


and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘more Lord] So Coverd. (both), Gen. (both), 
plenteously than we axen ;’ Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘of the Lord,’ Auth., Cran. ; 
Rhem., ‘more abundantly than we ‘for the Lord,’ Wiel. ; ‘for the Lordes 
desire.’ sake,’ Tynd. Were called| ‘Are 

21. In Christ Jesus] ‘By J.C.,’ Auth. called,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘and in J. 3. Striving] ‘Endeavouring,’ Auth. 
C., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘which The present current use of the verb 
is in,’ Cov. To all the generation, ‘endeavour’ seems to fall so short of the 
etc.| ‘ Throughout all ages, world with- real meaning of the σπουδάζειν as to war- 
out end,’ Auth., Bish., sim. Rhem.; ‘to rant the change in the text or the adop- 
alle the generaciouns of the worldis,’ tion of ‘being diligent’ (Tynd., Cran.), 
Wicl. ; ‘thorow out all gen. from tyme ‘using diligence,’ — terms more clearly 
to tyme,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘throughout all indicative of the σπουδὴ and zeal that 
gen. for ever,’ Gen. (both). was evinced in the matter; see Trench 

on Auth. Ver. ch. iii. p. 43. 

Cuar. IV. 1. 7 exhort you, etc.| “1, 4. There is, etc.| It can scarcely be 

therefore, the prisoner, ete. beseech you doubted that the Auth. is right in retain- 
23 


PPIUIESTANS- Cnap. IV. 5—12. 


178 


were called in one hope of your calling ; ° one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism ; ° one God and Father of all, who ¢s over all, and through 
all, and in all. 

7 But unto each one of us the grace which he has was given ac- 
cording to the measure of the gift of Christ. ° Wherefore He saith, 
When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave 
gifts unto men. ° Now that Ile ascended, what doth it imply but 
that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth. ' He 
THAT DESCENDED, He it is that ascended up above all the heavens, 
that He might fill all things. “And Himself gave some to be 
Apostles ; and some, Prophets ; and some, Evangelists ; and some 
Pastors and Teachers ; ” with a view to the perfecting of the saints, 


ing (after Gen. i. 2) this assertory form. 
Some of the older Vv., Wicl., Cov. (both), 
Bish., supply nothing; others, Tynd., 
Cran., supply the participle ‘being one 
body, etc.,’ both of which forms fail to 
convey the force of the original; see 
notes. Were called] ‘Are called,’ 
Auth. and all the other Vy. 

6. Over] So Rhem.: ‘above all,’ Auth. 
and all the remaining Vv. In all] 
‘In *you all,’ Auth. 

7. Each one] Sim. Wicl. : ‘ every one,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. This 
change seems desirable to avoid a con- 
fusion with the usual translation of παντί. 
The grace which, etc.| ‘Is given grace,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘grace is gouun.,’ 

8. He gave] ‘ *And gave,’ Auth. 
What doth it imply] ‘ What is it,’ Auth., 
Cov. (both), Gen. ii., Rhem.; ‘what 
meaneth it,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. i. 
Descended| ‘Descended *first,’ Auth. 

10. He it is] So Wicl.: ‘is the same 
also that,’ Auth. Above] ‘Far 
above,’ Auth. The heavens] So 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘heavens,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 

11. Himself] ‘He,’ Auth. Wiel., 
Rhem. ; ‘and the very same,’ Tynd., Cran. ; 
“and the same,’ Cov. (both) ; ‘ He there- 
fore,’ Gen. (both). To be Apostles | 


So Cov. (both), Gen. (both); ‘some,’ 
Auth. Wicel., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ made 
some,’ Tynd. Cran. The insertion of 
the words in italics seems necessary to 
make the sense perfectly clear. 

12. With a view to] ‘For,’ Auth., Cov. 
(Test.), Gen. ii.; ‘to the ful endynge,’ 
Wicl., ; ‘ that the sainctes might have all 
things,’ Tynd.; ‘whereby the sayntes 
mighte be coupled together,’ Cov. ; ‘to 
the edifyeng,’ Cran. ; ‘that the sainctes 
might be gathered together,’ Gen. i. ; ‘to 
the gathering togeather,’ Bish. ; ‘to the 
Of minis- 
tration| So Bish.; ‘of the ministry,’ 
Auth. ; ‘of mynsteri,’ Wicl. ; ‘work and 
minystracyon,’ Cran. For the build- 
ing up| ‘For the edifying,’ Auth., Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘to the edifying,’ Tynd, Cov. ; 
‘even to the edifying,’ Gen. i.; ‘edi- 
fication,’ Gen. ii.; ‘unto the edifying,’ 
Bish., Rhem. This translation is perhaps 
slightly preferable to that of Auth., and 
to that adopted in ed. i. (‘edification’), 
as both verb and substantive are now 
commonly associated with what is simply 
instructive or improving, without neces- 
sarily suggesting the wider sense which 
seems to prevail in the present passage. 
The article is required by the principles 
of English idiom, though confessedly thus 
not in exact harmony with the Greek. 


consummation,’ Rhem, 


77 


Cnap. LV. 13—16. EPHESIANS. 179 


for the work of mimistration, for the building up of the body of 
Christ ; * till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the 
true knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto 
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: “ that we may 
no longer be children, tossed to and fro and borne about by every 
wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in craftiness tending to 
the settled system of Error; “ἢ but holding the truth may in love 
grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Curist: 
"ἢ from whom the whole body being fitly framed together and com- 
pacted by means of every joint of the spiritual supply, according 


13. Arrive at] ‘Come in,’ Auth. ; 
“rennen into,’ Wiel. ; ‘growe up unto,’ 
Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘come to,’ Cran.; ‘al 
meete together (in the etc.), unto,’ Gen. 
2; ‘meete together into,’ Bish. ; ‘ meete 
al into,’ Rhem. The true knowl- 
edge| ‘ The knowledge,’ Auth.: the other 
Vv. omit the article. Full-grown] 
‘ Perfect,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 

14. May, etc.] ‘Henceforth be no more,’ 
Auth. Borne about by| “ Carried 
about with,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 
except Wiel., ‘borun aboute with ;’ 
Tynd., “ caryed with.’ In—in] So 
Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.: ‘by 
—and, Auth., Tynd.; ‘by — through,’ 
Cran. In craftiness, etc.] ‘And 
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in 
wait to deceive,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ‘to the disceyuynge 
of errour;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘to the de- 
ceatfulness of errour;’ Bish., ‘in crafti- 
ness to the laying in wayte of errour;’ 
Rhem., ‘ to the circumvention of errour.’ 
10 is by no means easy to devise a literal 
and at the same time perfectly intelligi- 
ble translation of the last clause of this 
verse. The difficulty is mainly in the 
brief and almost elliptical form of ex- 
pression introduced by the prep.: of the 
translations that have hitherto been pro- 
posed, that in the text, or ‘furthering, 
promoting the system, etc.’ (but see 
notes on Phil. iv. 17 Transl.), or more 


simply, ‘ with a view to the system,’ etc., 
seems the most suitable. 

15. Holding the truth] ‘Speaking the 
truth, Auth. ; ‘folowe the truth,’ Tynd., 
Coverd., Cran., Gen. (both), ‘do truthe ;’ 
Wicl., ‘perfourmyng ye truth,’ Coverd. 
(Test.); ‘folowing the truth,’ Bish. ; 
‘doing the truth,’ Rhem. May in 
love] ‘In love may,’ Auth. 

16. Being fitly framed together| “ Fitly 
joined together,’ Auth. It seems desira- 
ble to retain the same translation here 
and ch. ii. 21. The translation of sev- 
eral of the older Vy. e. g. ‘coupled and 
knet togedder,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.},Cran., 
Gen. (both), is not unsatisfactory ; ‘com- 
pacted ’ has, however, the advantage of 
preserving the σὺν in each verb without 
repetition; otherwise, ‘knit together’ 
would perhaps have been a more genu- 
inely English translation. Ac- 
tive working| ‘The effectual working,’ 
Auth. ; ‘worchynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘the opera- 
cion,’ Tynd., Cran., Rhem. ; ‘the effectual 
power,’ Gen. 1, The addition of the 
epithet ‘active’ or ‘vital,’ Alf.,—if in 
italics (see notes on ch. iii. 7, and on 
2 Thess. ii. 11), may perhaps here be 
rightly admitted as serying slightly to 
elear up the meaning. By 
means of, ete.| ‘By that which every 
joint supplieth,’ Auwth.; ‘in every joint 
wherwith one ministreth to another,’ 
Tynd., Gen. 1, and similarly Cov., Cran. ; 


180 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuapr. IV, 17—19. 


to active working in the measure of each single part, promoteth 
the increase of the body for the building up of itself in love. 
“This then I say and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer 
walk as the other Gentiles also walk, in the vanity of their mind, 
15 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life 
of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the 
hardness of their heart: ” who as men past feeling have given 


‘bi eche joynture of undir seruynge,’ 
Wiel. ; ‘every joynt of subministration,’ 
Cov. (Test.), and sim. Rhem. ; ‘by every 
joint for the furniture thereof,’ Gen. 2; 
‘by every joint yeelding nourishment,’ 
Bish. Each single] Sim. Wiel., 
‘each:’ ‘every,’ Auth. and all the re- 
maining Vy.; see notes on ver. 7. 
Promoteth the inerease| ‘Maketh in- 
crease,’ Auth.; ‘makith encreesynge,’ 
Wicl.; ‘maketh the increase,’ [hem. ; 
Tynd., al. paraphrase. The more mod- 
ern term ‘promoteth,’ seems admissible 
as both literal, and also tending to clear 
up the sense. For the building 
up of itself | ‘ Unto the edifying,’ Auth. : 
it seems desirable, for the sake of uni- 
formity, to preserve the same translation 
as in ver. 12; the simplest (paraphras- 
tic) translation would be ‘so as to build 
itself up in love. 

17. This then I say] ‘This I say 
therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- 
cept Rhem., ‘ this therefore I say.’ The 
resumptive character of the address is 
appy. here best preserved by the more 
literal translation of ody; comp. notes 
on 1 Tim, ch. ii. 1. Ye must no 
longer| ‘Ye henceforth walk not,’ Auth., 
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘ye 
walke not now,’ Wiel., Cov. (Test.), sim. 
Rhem. As the other. ... also] 
Sim. Cov.: ‘as other,’ Auth. and the other 
Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., 
which omit τὰ λοιπὰ in translation. 

18. Being darkened, ete.| ‘Having the 
understanding darkened,’ Auth., Cov. 
Test. (‘an und.’ ete.) ; ‘that han undir- 


stondynge derkned with derknesses,’ 
Wicl.; ‘blynded in their und” Tynd., 
Cov.; ‘whyle they are blinded, ete.’ 
Cran.; ‘having their cogitation dark- 
ened,’ Gen. (both) ; ‘ darkened in cogita- 
tion,’ Bish. ; “haying their und. obscured 
with darkness,’ Rhem. Alienated} 
‘Being alienated,’ Auth. On account of 
the absence of ὄντες in the second mem- 
ber, it seems best to omit the part. of the 
verb substantive. Because of } 
So Tynd., Cran., Gen. 1: ‘ through,’ 
Auth., Cov. (both), Gen. 2; ‘bi,’ Wicl., 
Bish,, Rhem. Hardness] So 
Gen. (both) : ‘blindness,’ Auth. and re- 
maining Vv.; see Trench on Auth. Ver. 
ch. vii. p. 117. 

19. Who as men] ‘ Who being,’ Auth., 
and sim., as to the translation of the 
relative, all the other Vv. Wan- 
tonness] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
(both), Bish.; ‘lasciviousness,’ Auth. ; 
‘unchastite,’ Wiel. ; ‘unclennesse,’ Cov. 
(Test.) ; ‘impudicitie,’ Rhem. The ar- 
ticle joined with it tends almost to per- 
sonify it, hence the capital. For 
the working] Sim. Wiel.,‘ in to the worch- 
ynge ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the workinge ;’ 
‘unto the operation,’ Rhem.: ‘to work,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

All manner of | So Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. 1: ‘all, Auth. and the remaining 
Vy.; see notes on ver. 31. 

In greediness] ‘ With greediness,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘in 
coueitise ;? Cov. (Test.), ‘unto gr.;’ 
Rhem., ‘unto avarice.’ This translation 
of πλεονεξία may be retained if qualified 


Cuap. IV. 20—25. EPHESIANS. 


181 


THEMSELVES over unto Wantonness, for the working of all man- 
ner of uncleanness in greediness. ™ But YE did not so learn 
Christ ; “if indeed ye heard Him, and were taught in Hi, as is 
truth in Jesus * that ye must put off, as concerns your former con- 
versation, the old man, which waxeth corrupt according to the lusts 
of Deceit, “and rather become renewed by the Spirit of your 


mind, “and put on the new man, which after God’s image hath 


been created in righteousness and holiness of Truth. 
» Wherefore, having put away Falsehood, speak truth each man 
with his neighbor ; because we are members one of another. 


by the remarks zn loc., and not under- 
stood as indicating a mere general 
ἀμετρία. The true idea of πλεονεξία is 
“amor habendi:’ the objects to which it 
is directed will be defined by the context. 

20. Did not so learn] ‘ Have not so 
learned Christ,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. 

21. If indeed} ‘Tf so be that,’ Auth., 
Bish., and sim. other Vv. except Wicl., 
‘if nethless ;’ Lthem., ‘if yet.’ 

Ye heard him] Sim. Wicl.: ‘have heard 
Him,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv. 
Were taught in Him] ‘ Have been taught 
by Him,’ Auth., Gen. (both); ‘ben 
taugte in Him,’ Wiel., Tynd., Cov.; ‘be 
instructe in Him,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘haue 
bene taught in Him,’ Cran. and the re- 
maining Vv. As is, etc.| So 
Wiel. ; ‘as the truth is in Jesus,’ Auth., 
Bish., and sim. remaining Vy. 

22. That ye must] ‘That ye,’ Auth. 
As concerns your former] ‘Concerning 
the former, etc.’ Auth. Which 
waxeth, etc.| ‘Which is corrupt,’ Auth., 
and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘which 
marreth himselfe. The lusts of 
Deceit} ‘The deceitful lusts,’ Auth. ; ‘bi 
the desiris of errour,’ Wicl., sim. Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. ; ‘ the deceavable lustes,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both); ‘the 
lustes of errour,’ Bish. 

23. And rather] ‘ And, Auth. 

Become renewed] ‘Be renewed,’ Auth. 


This change is made as an attempt to 
express the contrast between the pres. 
ἀνανεοῦσϑαι and the aor. ἐνδύσασϑαι. 

By the Spirit] ‘In the spirit,’ Auth. and 
all the other Vv. 

24. And put on] ‘And that ye put on,’ 
Auth. After the image of God} 
So Tynd., ‘after the ymage of God :’ 
“after God,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Rhem., ‘according to God.’ The 
order of the Greek τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισῶ. 
is similarly retained by all the Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov. (both). It may be 
observed that the transl. of Rhem., ‘ac- 
cording to,’ has the advantage of pre- 
serving the antithesis κατὰ τὰς ἐπιῶ. 
k. T. A.(ver. 23), and κατὰ Θεόν, but fails 
in bringing out clearly the great doc- 
trinal truth appy. implied in the latter 
words. Hath been created] ‘ Is 
created,’ Auth., and similarly all the 
other Vv. The transl. ‘hath been,’ is 
perhaps here slightly preferable to ‘ was,’ 
as the latter tends to throw the κτίσις 
further back than is actually intended ; 
the ref. being to the new κτίσις in Christ. 
Holiness of Truth] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Bish., similarly Rhem.: ‘true holiness,’ 
Auth, and the other Vv. except Cov., 
where it is more correctly, ‘ true righteous- 
ness and holynes.’ 

25. Having put away] ‘Putting away,’ 
Auth. Falsehood] ‘ Lying,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘lesynge.’ 


182 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 26—31. 


* Be angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your 


angered mood; “nor yet give 


place to the devil. ™ Let the 


stealer steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his 


own hands the thing that is good, 


that needeth. 


that he may have to give to him 


* Let no corrupt communication proceed out of 


your mouth, but that which is good for edification of the need, 
that it may minister a blessing unto the hearers ; Ἢ and grieve not 
the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed for the day of 


redemption. 


Truth each man| So Wiel.; ‘every man 
truth,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Cov. (Test-), Rhem. (omits ‘the’), ‘the 
truth every man.’ Because] ‘ For,’ 
Auth., Gen. 1, al. ; ‘for as moch,’ Tynd., 
Cran. ; ‘because,’ Rhem. 

26. Be angry] So the other Vv. ex- 

cept Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., ‘be ye 
angry ;’ Wicl., ‘be ye wrooth.’ 
Angered mood] ‘ Wrath,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vv. The change may per- 
haps be considered scarcely necessary, 
as the expression has become so familiar ; 
still παροργισμός, ‘exacerbatio,’ ‘exas- 
peration,’ cannot strictly be translated 
‘wrath.’ 

27. Nor yet] *‘Neither,’ Auth. ; see 
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3 ( Transl.) 

28. The stealer| ‘Him that stole,’ 

Auth., Bish., and sim. all other Vy. ex- 
cept Cov., ‘he that hath stollen;’ Cov. 
(Test.), ‘he that dyd steale.’ The 
Auth. in ver. 29 supplies a precedent for 
this idiomatic translation of the present 
part. with the article. Eis own] 
‘His,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 
The thing that) ‘The thing which,’ 
Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘that that,’ Weel. ; 
‘some good,’ Cov.; ‘some good thing,’ 
Tynd.; ‘that which,’ Bish., Rhem. The 
slight change to ‘that’ is perhaps more 
critically exact; see Brown, Gram. of 
Gramm. 11. 5, p. 293, and notes on ch. i. 
23. 

29. For edification] ‘To the use of 
edifying,’ Auth., Gen (both); ‘good to 


* Let all bitterness, and wrath and anger, and 


edefye with all,’ ete., Zynd., Cov., Cran., 
Bish.; ‘to the edificatioun of feith,’ 
Wicl., sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. On the 
difficulty of properly translating these 
words, see Trench on Auth. Ver. ch. x. 
p. 178. A blessing] ‘ Grace,’ 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., 
‘that it be gracious to hear;’ Tynd., 
‘that it may have faveour.’ 

30. In whom] Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘in 
whiche:’ ‘whereby,’ Auth. ; ‘by whom,’ 
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish; " 
‘wherewith,’ Cov. (both). Ye 
were] ‘Ye are,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. For| ‘Unto,’ Auth., Cov., 
Tynd., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘in 
the,’ Wiel. : ‘agaynst the,’ Cov. (Test). 

31. All bitterness] So Auth. It is not 
always desirable to preserve the more 
literal transl. of πᾶς (‘all manner of’), 
esp. when it is prefixed to more than 
one abstract substantive, as it tends to 
load. the sentence without being much 
more expressive. When the adj. fol- 
lows, as in ver. 19, the longer translation 
will often be found more admissible. 
Wrath} So Auth., Wicl., Coverd. ('Test.), 
‘fearsness,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
‘anger,’ Rish., Rhem. The translation 
may be retained, whenever Supds and 
ὀργὴ occur together, as sufficiently exact, 
provided that by ‘ wrath’ we understand 
rather the outbreak (‘excandescentia,’ 
Cicero, Tusc. Disput. αν. 9), by ‘anger’ 
the more settled and abiding habit. It 
is perhaps doubtful whether ‘wrath ” 


Cuap. V. 1—3. 


EPHESIANS. 


183 


clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice ; 
” but become kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one’ 
another, as God also in Christ forgave you. 


CHAPTER V. 


Become then followers of God, as beloved children; * and walk 
in love, even as Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us, an 
offering and a sacrifice to God, for a savour of sweet smell. 

* But fornication, and all manner of uncleanness or covetousness, 


does not imply a greater permanence 
than Suuds, see Cogan on the Passions, 1. 
1, 2. 3, p. 111, still as it is several times 
applied to God as well as man, it seems 
generally the most proper and satisfac- 
tory translation. Malice] So 
Auth. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘ma- 
liciousness,’ Tynd. and remaining Vv. 
except Bish., ‘noughtiness. As κακία 
points rather to the evil habit of the 
mind, as distinguished from πονηρία, the 
outcoming of the same (Trench, Synon. 
ὃ x1.),— ‘malice,’ which is defined by 
Crabb (Synon. s. v.) as ‘the essence of 
badness lying in the heart,’ would appear 
a correct translation ; see Cogan on the 
Passions, 1. 3. 2, 1, p. 159. 

32. But] ‘ And,’ Auth. Be- 

come kind] ‘Be ye,’ Auth. and other 
Vv. ; corresponding to ἀρϑήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, 
ver. 31. As God also in Christ] 
Similarly Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; 
“even as God for Christ’s sake,’ Auth., 
Tynd., and the remaining Vv. 
Forgave] So Wicl., Tynd., Gen. (both), 
Bish.; ‘hath forgiven,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. The aorist seems more 
exact, as pointing to the past act of 
God’s mercy and forgiveness displayed 
in ‘ Christ,’ ἡ. 6. in giving Him to die for 
the sins of the world. 


Cuarter V. 1. Become then followers] 


‘Be ye therefore followers,’ Auth. and 
the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘therfor be 
ye folowers;’ Cov., ‘be ye the folowers 
therefore ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be ye therfore 
the folowers.’ The more literal transl. 
of γίνεσθε might perhaps be here dis- 
pensed with, as necessarily involved in 
the action implied in μιμηταί; as, how- 
ever, it seems an echo and resumption 
of the preceding γίνεσϑε (ch. iv. 32), it 
will be most exact to retain this more 
literal translation. Beloved] 
‘Dear,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except 
Wicl., ‘dereworthe ;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
“most deare.’ 

2. Even as] So all the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘as;’ Cov. (Test.), 
“‘lyke as;’ see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5 
( Transl.). Loved us, etc.| So 
all Vy. except Auth, Gen. 2, Bish. 
(similarly Cov.), ‘hath loved us and 
hath given.’ Savour of sweet 
smell] ‘Sweet smelling savour,’ Auth., 
Gen. (both), Bish. ; ‘in to the odour of 
swetnes,’ Wieel., sim. Cov. (Test.) ; “5800. 
of a swete saver,’ T’ynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘in 
an odour of sweteness,’ Rhem. 

3. All manner of uncleanness] ** All 
uncleanness,’ Auth. ; see notes on ch. iv. 
31. Be even] ‘ Be once,’ Auth., 
Cran., Gen. 2, Bish., sim. Tynd., Gen. 1; 
“so much as be,’ Rhem.; Wicl. omits 
καὶ in transl. 


184 EPHESIANS. Cuap. V. 4—13. 


let it not be even named among you, as becometh saints ; ‘and no 
filthiness, and foolish talking or jesting, — things which are unbe- 
coming, — but rather giving of thanks. ° For this ye know, being 
aware that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man 
who is an idolater, hath an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ 
and God. ° Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because 
of these stns cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobe- 
dience. ‘Do not then become partakers with them. *For ye 
WERE once darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as 
children of light, —° for the fruit of the light zs in all goodness 
and righteousness and truth,—7 proving what is well-pleasing 
unto the Lord. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful 
works of darkness, but rather even reprove them. ™ For the 
things which are done by them in secret it is a shame even to 
speak of. ™ But all these things, when they are reproved, are 
made manifest BY THE LIGHT; for everything that is made mani- 


4. And no—and} ‘ Neither— nor,’ 
Auth. As several MSS., e.g. ADIEI 
FG; 4 mss.; Vulg., ‘Clarom.,, al. 
(Lachm., Meyer, al.), read #—%, it seems 
desirable to mark in the translation the 
reading adopted. Or] ‘ Nor,’ 
Auth. Jesting| So Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ harlotrie ;’ 
Rhem., ‘ scurrility.’ Things 
which are, etc.| ‘Which are not con- 
venient, Auth. ; ‘which are not comely,’ 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘which are 
things not comely,’ Gen. (both). 

5. Ye know, being aware] *‘Ye know 
that, etc.,’ Auth. An inheritance] 
‘ Any inheritance,’ Auth. and the other 
Vy. except Wicel., ‘eritage;’ Cov. 
(both), Rhem., ‘inheritaunce.’ 

Of Christ and God| ‘Of Christ and of 
God,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 

6. These sins] ‘ These things,’ Auth. 

7. Do not then become] Sim. Rhem., 
‘become not therefore;” ‘be not ye 
therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., 
Gen, 2, Bish.; ‘therfor nyle ye be 
made,’ Wicl.; ‘be not therefore,’ Tynd., 


Gen. 1: the insertion of ‘ye’ is not in 
accordance with the original. 

8. Once| So Tynd., Gen. (both) : 
‘sometimes,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘sometime,’ 
Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem. 

9. The light] ‘ The * Spirit,’ Auth. 

10. Well-pleasing] So Wicel., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; ‘acceptable,’ <Auth., 
Bish. ; ‘ pleasinge,’ Tynd. and the re- 
maining Vv. 

11 But rather even] Similarly, but 
rather awkwardly, Gen. 2, ‘but even 
reprove them rather;’ ‘but rather,’ 
Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wiel., 
‘but more ;’ Bish., ‘ but even rebuke.’ 

12. For the things, etc.| ‘For it is a 
shame even to speak of those things 
which are done of them in secret,’ Auth. 
and in similar order, the other Vy. ex- 
cept Wicl., Rhem. 

13, All these] ‘ All,’ Auth. 

When they are] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘that are,’ Auth., 
Wicl., Cov. (Test.) Rhem. 

For everything, etc.| ‘For whatsoever 
doth make manifest is light,’ Auth. ; ‘ for 


Sr 


Cuap. V. 14—24. EPHESIANS. 185 


fest is light. “ Wherefore He saith, Up! thou that sleepest, and 
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 

* Take heed then how ye walk with strictness, not as fools, but 
as wise, “buying up for yourselves the opportunity, because the 
days are evil. ” For this cause do not become unwise, but under- 
standing what the will of the Lord ἐ8. And be not made drunk 
with wine, wherein is dissoluteness, but be filled with the Spirit ; 
" speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, 
singmg and making melody in your heart to the Lord, ” giving 
thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, “ submitting yourselves one to another 
in the fear of Christ. 

* Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the 
Lord ; * for a husband is head of his wife, as Christ also is head of 
the church ; He 7s the saviour of the body. * Nevertheless as the 
church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives also be to their hus- 


al thing that is schewed is light,’ Wiel. ; 
‘for whatsoever is manifest, that same 
is light,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘for euery 
thinge that is manifest is light,’ Cov. 
(Test.) : ‘for it is light that discouereth 
all things,’ Gen. 1; ‘for it is light that 
makes all things manifest,’ Gen. 2; ‘for 
all that which doeth make manifest is 
light,’ Bish. ; ‘for al that is manifested 
is light,’ Rhem. 

14. Up! thou that sleepest] So Coverd. 
(Test.): ‘awake thou that sleepest,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
Wicl., Rhem., ‘rise thou that,’ ete. 

15. Tuke heed] So all the other Vv. 

except Wicl., Rhem., Auth., ‘see.’ 
How ye] So Cran., Cov. (both), Rhem., 
similarly Wiel. ; ‘that ye,’ Auth. and the 
remaining Vy. With strictness] 
‘Circumspectly,’ Avth. and the other 
Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘warily.’ 

16. Buying up, etc.| ‘Redeeming the 
time,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (Test.), simi- 
larly Cov., Gen. (both), Bish., Rhem.; 
‘agenbiynge tyme,’ Wrel.; ‘avoydyng 
occasion,’ Cran. 

17. For this cause] ‘Wherefore,’ Auth., 


24 


Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. ; 
‘therfor,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

Do not become] Sim. Rhem.; ‘be ye not,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. 

18. Made drunk] ‘Be not drunk,’ 
Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., 
‘nyle ye be drunken;’ Cov., ‘be not 
dronken ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be not ye 
dronken,’ Dissoluteness| ‘ Ἐχ- 
cess,’ Auth. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
(both), Bish.;  ‘leccherie,’ Wiel. ; 
“voluptuousnesse,’ Cov, (Test.) ; ‘riot- 
ousness,’ Rhem. 

19. One another] ‘ Yourselves,’ Auth. 
and all the other Vv. 

21. Of Christ] ‘ Of * God,’ Auth. 

22. Submit yourselves] Italics ; but not 
so in Auth. which adopts the insertion. 

23. A husband] *‘The husband,’ 
Auth. Head of his] ‘The head 
of the,’ Auth. As Christ also] 
‘Even as Christ,’ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Wicl Cov. (Test.), Rhem., 
‘ As Christ is.’ He is] *‘ And 
he is,’ Auth. 

24. Nevertheless] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. 
and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. 


180 EPHESIANS. Crap. V. 25—32. 


bands. ™ Husbands, love your own wives, even as Christ also loved 
the church, and gave Himself for it; * that He might sanctify it, 
having cleansed it by the laver of the water in the word, * that 
He might Himself present to Himself the church in glorious 
beauty, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that 
it should be holy and blameless. * Thus ought husbands also to 
love their own wives, as being their own bodies. He that loveth 
his own wife loveth himself. “For no man ever hated his own 
flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as Christ also doth 
the church: ” because we are MEMBERS of His body, of His flesh, 
and of His bones. ® For this cause shall a man leave his father 
and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall 
be one flesh. This mystery is a great one; I however am 


(Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘ but.’ 
Also be] ‘Be,’ Auth. Their hus- 
bands] *‘ Their own husbands,’ Auth. 

25. Your own] ‘ Your,’ Auth. and all 
the other Vy. 

26. Sanctify it, etc.] ‘Sanctify it and 
cleanse it,’ Auth., Gen. 2; ‘to sanctifie 
it, and clensed it,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
1; ‘to sanctifie it, when he had clensed 
it,’ Bish.; ‘sanctifie it, cleansing it,’ 
Rhem. By the laver of the, etc.] 
So Rhem. (‘of water’): ‘with the wash- 
ing of water by the word,’ Auth. ; ‘with 
the, etc., in the word,’ Wicl.: ‘in the 
fountayne of water thorow the worde,’ 
Tynd., Cran.; ‘in the f. of w. by the 
worde,’ Cov. ; ‘with the f. of w. in the 
worde,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘in the washing 
of w. through the worde,’ Gen..1; ‘in 
the fountain of water in the word,’ 
Bish. 

27. He might Himself, etc.] ‘He might 
present it *to Himself a glorious church,’ 
Auth., Bish. (‘unto’); ‘to make it unto 
Himselfe a glorious congregacion,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., similarly Gen. 1; ‘to geue 
the chirche glorious to Him self,’ Wicl. 
Blameless| ‘Without blemish,’ Auth. ; 
‘that it hadde no wemme,’ Wiel. ; ‘ with- 


out blame,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 
(both), Bish. ; ‘ undefyled,’ Cov. (Test.) ; 
‘unspotted,’ 2hem. ; see notes on ch. i. 4. 

28. Thus also, etc.] *‘So ought men 
to love,’ Auth. Own wife — 
wives] Auth. omits ‘own.’ 

As being] ‘ As,’ Auth. and all the other 
Vv. 

29. Ever] So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘ever 
yet,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- 
cept Cov. (Test.), ‘at ony tyme.’ 

Christ also, etc.| *‘ The Lord, the 
Church,’ Auth. 

30. Because] So Rhem.: ‘for,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., 
‘and.’ 

81. Father] *‘ His father,’ Auth. 

82. This mystery, etc.| ‘This is a great 

mystery,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.); ‘this 
sacrament is great,’ Wicl.; ‘is a great 
sacr.’ Rhem.; ‘is a great secrete,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both), Bish. 
I however am, etc.| ‘ But I speak,’ Auth. 
and the Vy. except Wicl., ‘ye I seie;’ 
Cov. (Test.), ‘but I say;’ “1 speake,’ 
Bish. In reference to| ‘ Con- 
cerning,’ Auth, Gen. 2; ‘in,’ Wiel., 
Cov. (Test.) Rhem.; ‘bitwene,’ Tynd. ; 
‘of,’ Cov., Cran., Gen. 


EPHESIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 1—8. 187 


speaking in reference to Christ and to the church. ἢ Nevertheless 
ye also severally, let each one ef you thus love his own wife as 
himself; and the wife, let her reverence her husband. 


CuapTer VI. 


CHILDREN, obey your parents, in the Lord; for this is mght. 
* Honour thy father and thy mother, the which is the first com- 
mandment in regard of promise; °* that it may be well with thee, 
and that thou mayest live long upon the earth. * And, ye fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the 
discipline and admonition of the Lord. 

° Bond-servants, be obedient to your masters according to the 
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ; ° not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as bond-ser- 
vants of Christ; doing the will of God from the heart; ‘ with 
good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: ‘seeing 
ye know that whatsoever good thing each man shall do, THIS shall 


33. Ye also, εἰς. ‘Let every one of 

you in particular,’ Auth.; ‘do ye so, 
that every one,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; 
‘you also let every one loue,’ Cov. 
(Test.); ‘every one of you, do ye so,’ 
Gen. (both), Bish. The slight asynde- 
ton in the original is perhaps best re- 
tained. Thus love his own wife 
as] ‘ So love his wife as,’ Auth. 
Let her reverence] ‘See that she rever- 
ence,’ Auth.; ‘and let the wife se that,’ 
Tynd., Gen. (both) ; ‘but let,’ ete., Cov. 
(both) ; ‘and let the wife feare,’ Cran., 
Rhem.; ‘and let the wyfe reverence,’ 
Bish. 


Cuap. VI. 2. Thy mother] So Wicl., 
Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘mother,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. The which] 
‘Which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen. 2, 
Bish., Rhem.; ‘that is, Wiel., Cov., 
Tynd., Gen. 1; ‘the same is,’ Cran. 

In regard of promise] ‘ With promise,’ 
Auth., Gen. 2; ‘that hath eny promes,’ 
16 


Tynd., Cov., Gen. 1; ‘in the promyse,’ 
Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. (omits ‘ the’) 
Rhem.; ‘in behest,’ Wiel. 

3. And that thou] ‘And thou,’ Auth. 
Upon] ‘ On,’ Auth. 

4. Discipline} So Rhem.; ‘nurture,’ 
Auth., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran. ; 
‘techynge,’ Wicl.; ‘instruction,’ Gen. 
(both), Bish. 

5. Bond-servants] ‘Servants,’ Auth. ; 
change to maintain the opposition in 
ver. 8. Your] ‘Them that 
are,’ Auth. 

6. Bond-servants] ‘The servants,’ Auth. 

8. Seeing ye know] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth., 
and similarly other Vv. except Tynd., 
‘and remember ;’ Cov., ‘and be sure;’ 
Gen. (both, ‘and know ye.’ 

Each man| So Wiel., ‘any man,’ 
Auth. and the remaining Vy. except 
Cov., “ἃ man;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘he doth; ’ 
Rhem., ‘he shall do.’ Shall 
do| So Wicl., Rhem.; ‘doeth,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vy. This| ‘The 


EPHESIANS. 


188 Crap. VI. 9—14. 


he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. " And, ye 
masters, do the same things unto them, giving up your threat- 
ening: seeing ye know that both their Master and yours is in 
heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him. 

” Finally, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the power of His 
might. “ Put on THE WHOLE ARMOUR of God, that ye may be 
able to stand against the stratagems of the devil: ” because our 
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but it is against Principalities, 
against Powers, against the World-Rulers of this darkness, against 
the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly regions. ™ For 
this cause take up THE WHOLE AarMoUR of God, that ye may be 
able to withstand in the evil day, and having fully done all, to 


stand. 


same,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘that 
same,’ Gren. (both) ; ‘that,’ Tynd., Bish. ; 
“it,’ Cov. 

9. Giving up your] ‘ Forbearing,’ Auth. ; 
‘puttinge awaye,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), 
Cran., Gen. (both), Bish.; ‘remitting,’ 
Rhem. Seeing ye know, etc.] 
‘Knowing that your * Master also is in 
h. neither is there,’ Auth. 

10. Finally] *‘ Finally my brethren,’ 
Auth. Be strengthened| So 
Rhem.; ‘be strong,’ Auth. and the re- 
maining Vy. except Wicl., ‘be ye coun- 
fortide.’ 

11. Stratagems] ‘ Wiles,’ Auth.; ‘as- 
piyngis,’ Wicl. ; ‘crafty assautes,’ Tynd., 
Cov., Gen. 1 ; ‘assaultes,’ Cov. (Test.), 
Cran., Gen. 2, Bish.; ‘deceites,’ Rhem. 
The translation in the text seems best to 
convey the idea of a fixed and settled 
plan: see notes on ch. iy. 14. 

12. Because our wrestling] ‘For we 
wrestle not,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 


except Wicl., ‘for why stryuynge ;’ 
Rhem., ‘for our wrestling.’ But 
itis] ‘But, Auth. The World- 
Rulers| ‘The rulers,’ Auth.; ‘ govern- 


ouris of the world,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
‘worldly rulers,’ Tynd., 
Cran.; ‘the worldly gouernours,’ Gen. 
(both), Bish. (omits ‘the’); ‘the rec- 


sim. Cov. ; 


* Stand therefore, having girt your loins about with truth, 


tors of the world,’ Rhem. Of 
this darkness} *‘ Of the darkness of 
this world,’ Auth. The spiritual 
hosts of wickedness] ‘Spiritual wicked- 
ness,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘spiritual thingis of 
w.’ Wicl., Cov. (Test); ‘spretual w.’ 
Tynd. ; ‘ye spretes of w.’ Cov.: ‘ spret- 
ual craftynes,’ Cran. ; ‘spiritual wicked- 
nesses,’ Gen. (both); ‘the spirituals of 
w. Rhem. In the heavenly 
regions] ‘In high places,’ Auth.; ‘in 
hevenli thingis,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), 
Cran.; ‘for hevenly thinges,’ Tynd. : 
‘under the heauen,’ Cov.; ‘which are 
above,’ Gen. 1; ‘which are in the hie 
places,’ Gen. 2; ‘in heavenly places,’ 
Bish.; ‘in the celestials,’ Rhem. 

13. For this cause] So Tynd., Cov., 

Gen. (both): ‘wherefore,’ Auth., Bish., 
Cran.; ‘therfor,’ Wicl., Rhem. 
Up] ‘Unto you,’ Auth. Fully 
done] ‘Done,’ Auth.; ‘and in alle 
thingis stonde parfigt, Wiel.: ‘havy- 
ing finished all thynges,’ Gen. (both), 
Bish. 

14. Having girt, etc.] ‘Having your 
loins girt about,’ Auth. Bish.; ‘and 
your loynes gyrd aboute,’ Tynd., Cov., 
Gen. (both), sim. Cran.; ‘having your 
loins girded in,’ Rhem. Hav- 
ing put on] ‘ Having on, Auth. 


ἢ 


Cuar. VI. 15—22. EPHESIANS. 189 


and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ' and having 
shod your feet with the preparedness of the gospel of peace; in 
addition to all, having taken up the shield of faith, wherewith ye 
shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked One ; 
1 and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, 
which is the word of God; “with all prayer and supplication 
praying always in the Spirit, and watching thereunto, with all 
perseverance and supplication for all the saints ; “ἢ and in particu- 
lar for me, that utterance may be GIVEN unto me in the opening 
of my mouth, so that with boldness 1 may make known the mys- 
tery of the gospel, * for which I am an ambassador im a chain ; 
that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 

*! But that ye also may know my condition, how I fare, Tychicus, 
the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make 
known to you all things: “whom I have sent unto you for this 


15. And having shod] ‘ And your feet 
shod,’ Auth. Preparedness] 
‘With the preparation,’ <Auth., Gen. 
(both); ‘in makynge rede of,’ Wiel.; 
‘(showes) prepared by the, ete.’ Tynd. ; 
‘that ye may be prepared,’ Cov., simi- 
larly Cran, ‘that ye may be prepared 
for ;’ ‘in the preparation,’ Bish. ; ‘to the 
prep.’ them. 

16. In addition to] ‘ Above all,’ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wieel., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem., ‘in alle thingis.’ 
Having, etc.| ‘Taking, Auth., Bish, 
Rhem.; ‘take to you,’ Tynd., Cran., 
Gen. 1; ‘take holde of,’ Cov. 

Wicked one] Sim. Rhem., ‘of the most 
wicked one:’ ‘the wicked,’ Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘the 
worst;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘the most wicked.’ 
The addition in the text seems desirable as 
marking the personality of τοῦ πονηροῦ. 

17. Receive] ‘ Take,’ Auth. and all the 
other Vv. 

18. With all prayer, ete.| ‘ Praying 
always with all, etc.’ Auth. 

All the saints] So Rhem.; ‘all saints,’ 
Auth, and the remaining Vv. except 
Wicl., ‘ alle holi men.’ 


19. And in particular] ‘And,’ Auth. : 

use of καὶ to add the particular to the 
general; see Fritz. on Mark, p. 11, 718, 
and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. 
In the opening, etc.| ‘That I may open 
my mouth boldly to,’ etc., Auth., Tynd., 
Cov., Cran., Gen. (both; ‘in openynge 
of my mouth,’ Wiel., similarly Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.: ‘that I may open my 
mouth freely to utter,’ etc., Bish. 

20. A chain] So Wiel. ; ‘in this ch.,” 
Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘in bonds,’ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. 

21. Condition} Sim. Tynd., Cran. ; 
‘ affairs,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘what case I am 
in,’ Cov.; change merely to avoid the 
homeeoteleuton. How I fare| 
‘And how I do,’ Auth.: all the other 
Vv., ‘what I do;’ but as this might be 
misunderstood and referred to what the 
Apostle was actually engaged in (see 
Wolf in loc.), it seems best, with Harl., 
to refer τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ to ‘meine Lage,’ τὶ 
πράσσω to ‘mein Befinden.’ 
The beloved] Sim. Cran., Cov. (Test.), 
‘the:’ ‘a beloved,’ Auth. ; ‘my,’ Wiel., 
Tynd., Coverd., Gen., Rhem,; ‘a,’ Bish. 

22. This very purpose} ‘The same,’ 


190 EPHESIANS. Cuar. VI. 23, 24. 


very purpose, that ye may know our affairs, and that he may com- 
fort your hearts. 

* Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace de with all them that 


love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. 


Auth. and all the other Vv. except 24. In incorruption] So Wicl., Rhem. ; 
Wicel., ‘ this same.’ May —may] ‘in sincerity,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘in puernes,’ 
‘Might — might,’ Auth.: change in ac- Tynd.; ‘unfaynedly,’ Cov., Cran. ; ‘sin- 
cordance with the law of the succession cerely,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ to the’r immor- 
of tenses, Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616. talitie,’ Gen. (both). 


WARREN F. DRAPER, 


PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER, 


ANDOVER, MASS. 


PUBLISHES AND OFFERS FOR SALE THE FOLLOWING, WHICH WILL 
BE SENT POST PAID ON RECEIPT OF THE SUM AFFIXED. 


GUERICKE’S CHURCH HISTORY. Translated by W. G. T. SHEDD, 
Brown Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 438 pp. 8vo. $2.25. 
This volume includes the period of the ANCIENT CHURCH (the first six centuries, A. C.). 


DISCOURSES AND ESSAYS. By Pror. W G. T. SHEDD. 312 pp. 
12mo. New Edition. $1.00. 
ConTEeNtsS.— The Method and Influence of Theological Studies.— The True Nature of 
the Beautiful, and its Relation to Culture. — The Characteristics and Importance of a Natural 
Rhetoric. — The Nature and Influence of the Historic Spirit. — The Relation of Language and 


Style to Thought.— The Doctrine of Original Sin.—'The Atonement, a Satisfaction for the 
Ethical Nature of both God and Man. 


LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. By 
Pror. W.G.T.SHEDD. 128 pp. 12mo. 60 cents. 


ConTENTS.— The Abstract Idea of History. — The Nature and Definition of Secular History. 
— The Nature and Definition of Church History.— The Verifying Test in Church History. 


OUTLINES OF A SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC. From the German 
of Dr. FRANCIS THEREMIN, by W G.T. SHEDD. Third and revised Edition, 
with an Introductory Essay by the Translator. pp. 216. 12mo. 75 cts. 


AUBERLEN ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION. Trans- 
lated by Rev. ADOLPH SAPHIR. 8vo. pp. 490. $1.50. 


CALVIN’S COMMENTARIES. (CALVIN SOCIETY’S EDITION.) 
Complete in 45 vols. 8vo. $55.00, with Postage added. 


These works are new, accurate, and faithful translations, by the Society specially organized 
for the purpose. The volumes average about 500 pages each, 8vo., are handsomely printed on 
fine paper, in large type, and bound in black cloth. Copious Tables and Indices are appended. 


CALVIN’S INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
3vols. 8vo. $5.00. with Postage added. 


The volumes of this work contain upwards of 600 pages each. Besides a Table of Scripture 
Passages, there is also a Table of Greek words explained, and a very copious General Index. 


ELLICOTT’S COMMENTARY, CRITICAL AND GRAMMAT- 
ICAL, on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. With an Introductory Notice 
by CaLvin E. Stowe, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. 
pp. 188. $1.50. 


HENDERSON ON THE MINOR PROPHETS THE BOOK 
OF THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. Translated from the Original 
Hebrew. With a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical By 
E. Henperson, D.D. With a Biographical Sketch of the Author, by E. P. 
Barrows, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. pp. 490. $3.00. 

(2) 


Publications of W. }ὶ Draper. 


COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By 
MosEs STuART, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological 
Seminary at Andover. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D. 
C. Ropsins. 12mo. pp. 544. $1.50. 


COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 
By Pror. M. Stuart. Third Edition. Edited and revised by Pror. R. D.C. 
ἘΟΒΒΙΝΒ. 12mo. pp. 575. $1.75. 


COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. By Pror. 
M. Stuart. 12mo. pp. 482. $1.25. 


STUART’S MISCELLANIES. pp. 369. 12mo. 75 cents. 


ConTentTs.—I. Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity. — II. Two Sermons on the Atone- 
ment.— III. Sacramental Sermon on the Lamb of God.—IV. Dedication Sermon. — Real 
Christianity. — V. Letter to Dr. Channing on Religious Liberty. — VI. Supplementary Notes 
and Postscripts. 


STUART’S GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTA 
MENT DIALECT. Second Edition. Corrected and rewritten. 8vo. $1.87. 


STUART’S HINTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPH- 
ECY. pp. 146. 12mo. 88 cents. 


PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. Translated from the Latin 
of J. A. Ernesti, and accompanied by Notes, with an Appendix containing 
Extracts from Morus, Beck, Keil, and Henderson. By M. Sruarr. Fourth 
Edition. 12mo. Half cloth. pp. 142. 60 cents. 


STUART’S HEBREW CHRESTOMATHY. Designed as an Intro- 
duction to a course of Hebrew Study. Third Edition, 8vo. pp. 281. 75 cents. 


MESSIANIC PROPHECY AND THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 
By Rev. W.S. KENNEDY. 12mo. pp. 484. $1.00. 


SCHAUFFLER’S MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF 
CHRIST. 12mo. pp. 439. $1.00. 


BIBLE HISTORY OF PRAYER. By Ὁ. A. Goopricu. 12mo. 
pp. 884. $1.00. 


MONOD’S DISCOURSES ON THE LIFE OF ST. PAUL. 
Translated from the French, by Rev. J. H. Myers, D.D. 12mo. pp. 191. 
75 ets. 


CARLYLE’S LATTER-DAY PAMPHLETS. 12mo. pp. 427. $1.00. 


NEMESIS SACRA. A series of Inquiries, Philosophical and Critical, into 
the Seripture Doctrine of Retribution on Earth. pp. 550. $2.75. 


THEOLOGIA GERMANICA. Which setteth forth many fair linea- 
ments of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a 
Perfect Life. Edited by Dr. Prre1rrer, from the only complete manuscript 
yet known. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. 
With a Preface by the Rev. CHARLES Kina@siery, Rector of Eversley; and 
a Letter to the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BuNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., ete.; 
and an Introduction by Pror. Catvin E. Stowxr, D.D. 16mo. pp. 275. 
Cloth, $1.00; calf, $2.00. 


THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Edited, with an 
Introduction, by Prof. W. G. T. SHEpD. l16mo. pp. 458. $1.00. 
(b) 


BS2695 .E46 
commentary, critical and grammatical, 


Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 


GAYLORD #3523PI — Printed in USA 


eve 


ΓΝ ὁ 
ἢ ny. . ἢ Py) j un, 
: Ti 


if 
i 


tt 


